Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Full text of "The Presbyterian Review"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2016 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 














Published /or the Presbyterian Review Association by 


743-745 Broadway. 

T. & T. CLARK, Edinburgh, Scotland. 


Bi rr Printing House, 
Jacob Street, New York. 




By Prof. Thomas Witherow, D.D. 



By the Rev. Hanford A. Edson, D.D. 


By Prof. George W. Knox. 


By the Rev. Principal William Caven, D.D. 


By the Rev. Henry J. Van Dyke, Sr., D.D. 


By Prof. Francis L. Patton, D.D., LL.D. 

. VII. — Critical Notes. — Origin of the Scottish Collects of 1595 ; A discovery, 

by the Rev. D. D. Bannerman, p. 151 ; The Wolf Expedition to Baby- 
lonia, by Prof. Francis Brown, D.D., p. 155 151 

VIII.— Editorial Notes.— Plans and Prospects, by the Managing Editors, p. 160 ; 

Evangelization, by Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., p. 161 ; Alliance of the 
Reformed Churches, holding the Presbyterian System, by the Rev. 

T. W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D., p. 164 160 

IX. — Reviews of’ Recent Theological Literature. — By Drs. Howard Os- 
good, F. Brown, W. H. Green, B. B. Warfield, D. H. MacVicar, J. De 
Witt, H. M. Baird, E. D. Morris, John Campbell, W. G. T. Shedd, 

A. A. Hodge, T. S. Hastings, G. L. Prentiss, C. A. Aiken, Profs. Hunt 
and Johnston, and editors. — Green’s Hebrew Feasts, p. 166 ; Bissell’s 
Pentateuch, p. 167'; Gardiner’s Old and New Testaments in their Mu- 
tual Relations, p. 168 ; Trumbull’s Blood Covenant, p. 170 ; Bowen’s 
Layman’s Study of the English Bible, p. 171 ; Half-Hours with the 
Lessons of 1S86, p. 172 ; Westminster Question Book, p. 172 ; Smith’s 
Outline of General Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 172 ; Well- 
hausen’s Skizzen, II., p. 172 ; Bottcher’s Buch Hiob, p. 172 ; Guthe’s 
Zukunftsbild des Isaia, p. 173 ; Arndt’s Stellung Ezechiels, p. 173 ; 
Schaff’s Oldest Church Manual, p. 173 ; Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 176 ; 


'FABLE OF CONTENTS — January Continued. 

Chiniquy’s Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 178 ; Moffat’s Church 
History, p. 1S0; De Felice’s Mer, p. 180; Wellhausen’s Prolegomena 
to the History of Israel, p. 181 ; Stephen’s Dictionary of National 
Biography, III. -IV., p. 181 ; Ritschl’s Pietismus, p. 182 ; Strauss’ Re- 
publican Form of Government, p. 182 ; Lafayette Avenue Church, p. 183 ; 
Watt’s Rule of Faith, p. 183 ; Armour’s Atonement and Law, p. 184; 
Freemantle’s World the Subject of Redemption, p. 186 ; Schaff’s Christ 
and Christianity, p. 187 ; Tschakert’s Evangelische Polemik, p. 188 ; 
Elliott Lectures, p. 190; Rankin’s Coming of the Lord, p. 191 ; Hiley’s 
Inspiration of Scripture, p. 191 ; Martensen’s Boehme, p. 191 ; Mul- 
chaney’s Witness of the Church to the Christian Faith, p. 191 ; Fried- 
lander’s Guide to the Perplexed of Maimonides, p. 191 ; D’Alviella’s 
Contemporary Evolution of Religious Thought, p. 191 ; De Witt’s Ser- 
mons, p. 192 ; Gregory’s Consecrated Culture, p. 192 ; Kiihl’s Gemeinde- 
Ordnung, p. 194 ; Miller’s In His Steps, p. 194; Worcester’s Woman- 
hood, p. 194; Pietel’s Missions-stunden, p. 194; Spurgeon’s Sermon 
Notes, p. 195; Parker’s Apostolic Life, p. 195; Expository Sermons on the 
Old Testament, p. 195 ; Steinmeyer’s Rede des Herrn auf dem Berge, 
p. 195; Talmage’s Sermons, p. 196; Deems’s Sermons, p. 197; Royce’s 
Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. 197 ; Lotze’s Microcosmus, p. 200 ; 
Ribot’s Philosophie Allemande, p. 202 ; Werner’s Italienische Philoso- 
phic, III., p. 202 ; Hahn’s History of the Arguments for the Existence 
of God, p. 202 ; Schliemann’s Tiryns, p. 202 ; Harrison’s and Basker- 
vill’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, p. 203 ; Wilson’s Congressional Govern- 
ment, p 204; Cable’s Silent South, p. 205; Bents’ Cyclades, p. 206; 
Shaw’s Madagascar and France, p. 207 ; Halsey’s Scotland’s Influence 
on Civilization, p. 207 ; Books received, p. 208 166 



By Prof. Herrick Johnson, D.D., LL.D. 


By Prof. Edward D. Morris, D.D. 


By the Rev. Donald Fraser, D.D. 


By the Rev. Alfred Yeomans, D.D. 


By Prof. Francis Brown, D.D., Ph.D. 

MENT 304 

By Prof. W. Henry Green, D.D., LL.D. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS— April Continued. 


VII. — Critical Note. — Italics in our English Bibles, by Prof. Willis J. Beecher, 

D.D 355 

VIII. — Editorial Notes. — James Eells, p. 357 ; The Mormon Question, by the 
late Prof. James Eells, D.D., LL.D., p. 358; The Relations of the 
Three Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, by Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., 
LL.D., p. 363 ; The Discussion of the Revised Version of the Old 
Testament, by Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D.,p. 369 357 

IX. — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by Profs. C. W. Hodge, 

W. H. Green, B. B. Warfield, Francis Brown, R. B. Welch, J. C. 
Moffat, A. A. Hodge, James Eells, E. D. Morris, C. A. Aiken, J. S. 
Riggs, J. De Witt, H. M. Baird, and the editors; Holtzmann’s Einleit- 
ung, p. 380; Pearson’s Prophecy of Joel, p. 381 ; Weiss’s Briefe an 
Timotheus und Titus, p. 382 ; Thomson’s The Land and the Book, 
p. 383; Schiirer’s History of Jewish People, p. 384 ; Crosby’s New Testa- 
ment, p. 385 ; Murphy’s Daniel, p. 385 ; Godet’s John, p. 386 ; Lind- 
say’s Acts, p. 386 ; Weiss’s Meyer’s Brief an die Romer, p. 386 ; Zock- 
ler’s Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften, IV., p. 386 ; Tulloch's Move- 
ments of Religious Thought, p. 389 ; Andrews’ God’s Revelations of 
Himself, p. 396 ; Rosenthal’s Apokryphische Bucher, p. 396 ; Schaff’s 
Augustine, etc., p. 397 ; Ebrard’s Christian Ernst von Brandenburg, 
p. 397 ; Stephen’s Dictionary of Natural Biography, V., p. 397 ; Jeremy’s 
Presbyterian Fund, p. 397 ; Macdonald’s Fletcher of Madeley, p. 397 ; 
Johns Hopkins University Studies in History, III., p. 398 ; Progres- 
sive Orthodoxy, p. 398 ; Fiske’s Destiny of Man, and Ideal of God, 
p. 400 ; Cremer’s Beyond the Grave, p. 401 ; Capel’s The Pope, p. 402 ; 
Tolstoi’s My Religion, p. 403 ; Cumming’s Nature in Scripture, p. 403 ; 
Jones’s Great Preachers of Wales, p. 404 ; Booth’s Heavenly Vision, 
p. 405 ; Carmina Sanctorum, p. 406 ; Stryker’s Christian Chorals, 
p. 408 ; Rothe’s Gesammelte Vortrage, p. 408 ; Danckswerts’ Katechet 
Auslegung Catechismus Luther’s, p. 409 ; Kohler’s Volksthlimlichkeit 
der evangel. Kirche, p. 410 ; Sorley’s Ethics of Naturalism, p. 410 ; 
Caird’s Social Philosophy, p. 413 ; Lotze’s Outlines of Psychology, 
p.413; Werner’s Italienische Phil., p. 413; Salter’s Religion der 
Moral, p. 413 ; Fisher’s Outlines of Universal History, p. 414; Morris’ 

Early Hanoverians, p. 414 ; Harper’s Hebrew Method, p. 415 ; Works 
received, p. 416 379 



By the Rev. Principal D. H. MacVicar, D.D., LL.D. 



By Prof. Edward Riggs, D.D. 


By the Rev. George S. Mott, D.D, 

TABLE OF CONTENTS— July Continued. 


By the Rev. Samuel W. Duffield. 


By Prof. Robert Flint, D.D..LL.D. 

VI. — Critical Note.— The Vision of Ezra the Scribe Concerning the Latter 

Times of the Ishrhaelites, by the Rev. Isaac H. Hall 537 

VII. — Editorial Note. — The General Assembly, by Prof. Francis L. Patton, 

D.D., LL.D 542 

VIII — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by Drs. B. B. Warfield, 
W. J. Beecher, T. W. Chambers, C. A. Aiken, F. Brown, A. A. Hodge, 
H. M. Baird, R. B. Welch, G. Macloskie, H. Johnson, W. M. Paxton, 
W. G. Blaikie, J. Eells, W. Caven, W. A. Packard, S. S. Orris, A. F. 
West, N. M. Butler and Editors. — Salmon’s Historical Introduction 
to the Story of the Books of the New Testament, p. 545 ; Miller’s Guide 
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 546 ; Harman’s 
Historical Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, p. 547; 
Vos’s Mosaic Origin of the P.entateuchal Codes, p. 548; Strack’s Hebrew 
Grammar, p. 549 ; Simon’s Bible an Outgrowth of Theocratic Life, 
p. 549; Naumann’s Wellhausen’s Methode Kritisch Beleuchtet, p. 550; 
Spurgeon's Treasury of David, p. 550 ; Riddle’s Revised Edition of 
Robinson’s Harmony, p. 550; Dawson’s Egypt and Syria, p. 550; 
Sheldon's History of Christian Doctrine, p. 551 ; Sander’s Die Huge- 
notten und das Edikt von Nantes, p. 552; Wedekind’s Die Refugies, 
p. 552 ; Delaborde’s Frangois de Chastillon, p. 553 ; The Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, Vol. IV., p. 554 ; Stephen’s Dictionary of National Biography, 
p. 555 ; Blackie’s What Does History Teach? p. 555 ; Dubb’s Histor- 
ical Manual of the Reformed Church in the United States, p. 556 ; 
Dorner’s System der Christlichen Sittenlehre, p. 556 ; Van Dyke’s 
Theism and Evolution, p. 558 ; Candlish’s Work of the Holy Spirit, 
p. 558 ; Thikotter’s Th6ologie de l’Avenir, p. 559 ; Eight Studies on 
the Lord’s Day, p. 560; Vernon’s Probation and Punishment, p. 562 ; 
Schindler’s Messianic Expectations and Modern Judaism, p. 562 ; 
Rendall’s Theology of the Hebrew Christians, p. 563 ; Little’s Rea- 
sons for being a Churchman, p. 563 ; Hodge’s What is Presbyterian 
Law? p. 564; Moffat’s Lives of Robert and Mary Moffat, p. 565; 
Barthold’s Wendung zur Wahrheit, p. 567 ; Hornburg’s Handbuch fur 
den Confirmanden-Unterricht, p. 568; Carpenter’s Sunrise on the 
Soul, p. 568 ; Parker’s People’s Bible, Vol. II., p. 568 ; Thirty Thou- 
sand Thoughts, Vol. IV., p. 569 ; Modern Preachers of England, 
Part I., p. 569; Golden Promises, p. 569; Hodge’s Commentary on 
the Confession of Faith, p. 569 ; Seth’s Scottish Philosophy, p. 570 ; 
Zeller’s Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, p. 571 ; Ribot’s 
German Psychology of To-day, p. 572; Porter’s Kant’s Ethics, p. 573 ; 
Hamilton's Mental Science, p. 573 ; Field’s Greek Islands and Turkey 
after the War, p. 574 ; Mommsen’s Rdmische Geschichte, p. 575 ; Con- 
rad’s German Universities for the last Fifty Years, p. 577; Pater’s 
Marius the Epicurean, p. 579; Adams’s Greek Prepositions, p. 580; 
Froude’s Oceana, p. 581 ; etc., etc 






By Prof. William Henry Green, D.D., LL.D. 


By Rev. Joseph K. Wight. 

III. — INSTINCT, , 622 

By Prof. T. S. Doolittle, D.D. 



By Prof. Nicholas Murray Butler, Ph.D. 


By the Rev. Erskine N. White, D.D. 


By Prof. James C. Moffat, D.D, 

VII, — Critical Note.— The Prophecy of Immanuel (Isaiah vii.-xii.), by Prof. 

John Forbes, D.D., LL.D 690 

VIII. —Editorial Notes. — The General Synod of the Reformed Churches in 
America, by the Rev. T, W. Chambers, D.D.,p. 714 ; General Assem- 
bly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, by Principal William Caven, 

D.D., p. 717 ; Synod of the English Presbyterian Church, by Rev. John 
Reid, Jr., M.A., p. 722 ; Irish General Assembly, by Rev. William 
Irwin, p. 725 ; General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, by Prof. 

A. H. Charteris, D.D., p. 729 ; General Assembly of the Free Church 
of Scotland, by Prof. W, G. Blaikie, D.D., p. 735 714 

IX.— Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by M, W. Jacobus, 

W. H. Green, B. B. Warfield, H. P. Smith, F. Brown, C. W. Hodge, 

J. DeWitt, S. M. Jackson, C. A. Aiken, A. A, Hodge, J. Laidlaw, 

M. R. Vincent, T. W. Chambers, F. L. Patton, and T. S, Hastings.— 
Wendt's Die Lehrejesu, p. 740; Ciemer’s Supplement to Biblico-Theo* 
logical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 746 ; Bartlett’s Scriptures, 
Hebrew and Christian, Arranged for Young Readers, p. 747 ; Gins* 
burg’s Massorah, p. 748 ; Milligan’s Revelation of St. John, p. 750 ; 
Dillmann’s Genesis, p. 751 ; De Witt’s Praise-Songs of Israel, p. 751 ; 
Wright’s Biblical Essays, p. 751 ; Lechler’s Apostolic and Post-Apos- 
tolic Times, p. 752 j Brown’s From Schola to Cathedral, p. 753 ; Baur's 
Zwingli’s Theologie, p. 754; Lipsius’s Theologischer. Jahresbericht, 

P- 755 ; Current Discussions in Theology, p. 756 ; Edgar’s Old Church 
Life in Scotland, p. 756 ; Hicks’s Henry Bazely, p. 757 ; Lohe’s Leben, 
p. 757 ; Zahn’s Abriss einer Gesch. d. Evangelischen Kirche auf d. 
Europaischen Festlande im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, p. 757 ; Farrar’s 
History of Interpretation, p. 757; Shedd’s Doctrine of Endless Punish- 
ment, p. 761 ; Reusch’s Nature and the Bible, p. 763 ; Cave’s Intro- 

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS— October Continued. 

duction to Theology, p. 763 ; Cazenove’s Historic Aspects of the 
A. Priori Argument Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, p. 765 ; 
Abbot’s Scientific Theism, p. 765 ; Lipsius’s Philosophic und Religion, 
p. 767 ; Anderson's Human Destiny, p. 76S ; Christian Thought, third 
series, p. 76S ; Leighton’s Jewish Altar, p. 768 ; Fraser’s Metaphors 
in the Gospels, p. 769 ; Duflield’s English Hymns, p. 769 ; Grunde- 
mann's Zur Statistik d. Evangelischen Mission, p. 770 ; Warneck’s 
Missions-stunden, p. 770 ; McCosh’s Psychology, p. 771 ; Smith's 
Spinoza and his Environment, p. 773 ; Green's Philosophical Works, 
p. 775 i Sidgwick’s Outlines of the History of Ethics for English 
Readers, p. 775 ; lanes’s Human Psychology, p. 775 ; Stedman’s Poets 
of America, p. 776 ; Scherer’s History of German Literature, p. 778 ; 
Petrie’s Tanis, p. 779 ; Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, p. 780; Badeau’s 

Aristocracy in England, p. 7S0 740 

Index 781 




No. 25.— January, 1886. 



O one who reads the New Testament carefully, with a view to 

JL ascertain what it teaches in regard to the organization of the 
Church, it is obvious that apart altogether from the ordinary mem- 
bers there were official members, known by such names as deacons, 
elders, bishops, pastors, teachers, and ministers. Seven men were 
on one occasion appointed to serve tables and to provide for widows 
in the daily ministrations. Elders were appointed by Paul and 
Barnabas in the newly formed churches of Lycaonia. In the church 
at Antioch we find prophets and teachers, and in the church at 
Philippi bishops and deacons. The Thessalonians had those who 
labored among them and were over them in the Lord, while the 
Hebrew Christians had some who ruled over them and watched for 
their souls. Churches were not permitted to remain for any long 
time without such officers, and till they were supplied there was 
something “ wanting.” 

Between these and the private members of the Church, the Script- 
ures draw a marked line of distinction. These officers have names 
peculiar to themselves. They are set apart to their work with the 
laying on of hands. They have distinctive duties to perform. They 
are promised, in case of being diligent and faithful, a special reward. 
Not only so, but there are special duties which the ordinary church- 
members are enjoined to perform to these officers : they are to 
acknowledge, to esteem, to remember, to obey, and to support 
them. All these considerations show that at a time when the 
Church was under the guidance of the living apostles of Christ, there 
was a clear line of demarcation between teachers and taught, the 
rulers and the ruled. 


That apostles and prophets and evangelists were divine gifts to 
the Church is admitted by all who receive the Word of God. But 
the ordinary ministers, pastors, and teachers, as well as the extraor- 
dinary, are classed among the gifts of God (Eph. iv. 11-13). Special 
qualifications would not be divinely required in them if mere human 
authority had called their office into existence (I. Tim. iii. 13). 
Special promises are made to them (I. Pet. v. 1-4). If the Gospel 
ministry was a mere creation of human wisdom, can any man suppose 
that God would be at such pains to describe its qualifications, to 
surround it with promises, and to encourage the diligent perform- 
ance of its duties with the hope of eternal reward ? It would be 
difficult to conceive such a thing. But the passage which above all 
others is conclusive for the divine origin of the ministry is I. Cor. 
xii. 28 — “ God hath set some in the Church, first apostles ; secondly 
prophets ; thirdly teachers, then helps, governments.” What fur- 
ther proof can any one need of teachers, helps, governments, being 
divine in their institution, than this word that God hath “set them’’ 
in the Church ? 

The ministry in a church were always restricted to a portion of 
the whole. The church, or body of believers, was first gathered, 
and then officers were appointed over it, charged with the duty of 
attending to the spiritual and temporal wants of the society. Those 
to whom spiritual duties were committed were charged with the 
heaviest responsibility, and were obliged to perform the most labori- 
ous work. They were entitled to remuneration for their services ; 
they who preached the Gospel were to live of the Gospel, and the 
elders who ruled well and taught diligently were entitled to a double 
reward. It followed from this that an ordinary Christian could not 
walk into church office, and burden the church with his support 
exactly when it seemed good to himself ; he had to wait till he was 
invited. A man was not to push himself into the office of a deacon 
merely because he imagined that he could handle money, and dis- 
tribute the alms of the church to more advantage than those who 
were regularly appointed to that duty. Nor was a man, at the 
promptings of his own ambition, to assume the functions of a pastor 
or bishop simply because he thought that he fitted the office, or 
that the office fitted him ; he had to wait till he was called and 
appointed in due form. No Christian can assume at his pleasure, 
or lay down at his pleasure, an office so grave and important with- 
out danger of sin. Conduct so self-willed and irregular would excite 
confusion in a sphere where everything ought to be done decently 
and in order. All good men are not called to the ministry ; and 
while it is the will of God that every man should be useful in his 



own sphere, it is not His will that every man should be a church- 
officer. The ministry is itself a gift, and a gift that is conferred 
only on some for the good of all. God “ gave some to be apostles, 
and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and 
teachers. ” 

All church-members cannot be ministers. God and nature never 
intended it so to be, and that for obvious reasons. Duties so oner- 
ous and so diversified may be discharged by a few, but cannot pos- 
sibly be discharged by all. At least one half the members in every 
church are women, who by express statute are forbidden to speak in 
church-meetings. Of the remainder, more than a half are young 
people, members of Christian families, themselves in a condition 
better suited to receive than to communicate instruction. Of male 
adults, the great majority are disqualified to edify the congregation, 
from want of sufficient knowledge, want of time for study, want of 
training, want of nerve, or want of inclination. Of those who in 
point of superior knowledge are qualified, perhaps not a dozen, even 
in a large congregation, are “ apt ” to teach in an edifying manner, 
and willing to exert their gifts in public. But in the absence of a 
stated pastor, entitled to “ double honor” for laboring in word and 
doctrine, no greater obligation rests on two out of a dozen compe- 
tent persons than rests upon the other ten. What is equally the 
business of a dozen comes at last to be the business of nobody in 
particular, especially if the work to be done requires heavy intellect- 
ual effort, and is followed by no reward. The inevitable result 
must be that within a few years, in all but exceptional cases, for 
want of a stated ministry to feed and guide the flock, the instruction 
becomes inadequate, members grow remiss in attendance, religion 
languishes, and the congregation ceases to thrive. Sects which, 
like the Quakers, two centuries ago, made the bold experiment of 
abolishing the pastorate, are either now extinct or have barely 
escaped. Common-sense, not to speak of Scripture, suggests that 
important special work cannot safely be intrusted to volunteers. 

Moreover, it is not in accordance with Scripture or reason that 
every member of a church shall be at liberty when he pleases to fill 
any office therein. ‘‘If the whole body were an eye,” says the 
Apostle, ‘‘where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, 
where were the smelling ? And if they were all one member, where 
were the body?” In the human body any limb or member does 
not claim its right to perform the functions of any other part. The 
feet do not usurp the work of the tongue, nor do the hands under- 
take the work of the head. The functions of life are best dis- 
charged when each member of the body performs in the common 



interest that special work which nature designed it to discharge. 
Now, the Church in the highest sense is the body of Christ, and 
“ God hath set the members each one of them in the body, even as 
it pleased Him.” The work of the Church is best done, not by 
every man insisting on his fancied right to act as pastor, or deacon, 
or cider, or member, exactly as it suits his own inclination, but by 
using to the best spiritual advantage the position, however humble, 
in which Providence has placed him, until he is called to occupy a 
higher post in the regular way. The ecclesiastical machine moves 
most smoothly and best fulfils its functions when the pastors teach, 
and the elders rule, and the deacons distribute, and the members 
attend the Church services and obey Church rulers, and when every 
one is careful to do his duty in the sphere where Divine Providence 
has cast his lot. The general good of the Christian people demands 
that the serious duties of the pastorate shall not be entrusted to 
the fitful efforts of volunteers, who are without responsibility, and 
who often have little except forwardness and incompetence to recom- 
mend them, but rather to those who are called and are appointed to 
office with the forms that God has prescribed. He has given some 
to be pastors and teachers ; but the gift is limited in its nature ; 
He has not conferred the office of the ministry upon all. 

The Church does not exist for the use of the ministry, but the 
ministry exists for the use of the Church. The ultimate end for 
which it labors is “ the perfecting of the saints.” At present, saints 
are not perfect in faith, in knowledge, in love or in life. The most 
that can be said is, that they aim to reach that goal. The gift of 
the ministry is conferred by the risen Saviour to aid them in their 
efforts, by guiding, teaching, exhorting, and comforting them. But 
the ministry cannot perform this service with efficiency except the 
people wait diligently upon their ministrations. They cannot rea- 
sonably hope to profit if designedly they discard the assistance of 
the ministry, and deny the very institution to be divine. Men are 
not saved against their will and in defiance of the means divinely 
appointed for the purpose. How can men hope to reach perfection 
if they deliberately reject the aid of the institution which has 
been given by God Himself for the perfecting of the saints? People 
bound for a distant country do not usually reach their destination 
by getting aboard the liner, then packing off the officers and crew 
to shore, and taking the command themselves. The ministry has 
been planted in the Church for high spiritual ends, and we have no 
right to expect that these ends in ordinary cases can be reached if 
in our short-sighted wisdom we set aside the means which the Head 
of the Church Himself has given for that special purpose. 



The unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son, the full- 
grown man, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, are 
all very distant things. No saint on earth has reached them yet, 
and the time when the elect of God not yet born shall have reached 
them is more distant still. Yet the gift of the ministry is to con- 
tinue till we all attain that glorious destiny. Prophets and apostles 
have indeed passed away ages ago ; but the ordinary ministry which 
the apostles set up — the pastors and teachers — are to exist in the 
Church “ till we all attain unto the unity of the faith and of the 
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the 
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” There is not, 
therefore, much prospect that the ministry, specially given for the 
accomplishment of an object so very remote, will come abruptly to 
a close. However advanced the human race may be in religious 
knowledge compared with what it was eighteen centuries ago, much 
spiritual ignorance still prevails, so that there still exists the same 
moral necessity that existed then for the instruction which the min- 
istry is designed to impart. The evangelist, whose work is to gather 
in the outcast, may pass away, as prophet and apostle have already 
done, for the time is coming when no one will need to say to his 
neighbor, ‘‘Know the Lord;” but ‘‘the perfecting of the saints” 
— the work of the ordinary ministry — cannot be finished till the last 
prodigal child shall be gathered home to the bosom of the great 

We are, indeed, reminded that this is an age of the Spirit, when 
outward aids and instrumentalities are not so much needed as they 
once were, and may safely be dispensed with. But the answer is, 
that it is not more so than the apostolic age ; and if at a time when 
the Church was governed by apostles and prophets, ordinary “ pas- 
tors and teachers” were set up, we do not see that they can safely 
be taken down, now that prophets and apostles are away. Would 
it be right for man to destroy what God has established ? Not only 
what He has established, but what He has given orders to continue? 
Timothy was instructed to continue the institution by the words, — 
“ The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, 
the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach 
others also.” Besides, the faithful and wise steward, whom the lord 
has set over his household, will be found at his post when the 
Master cometh, giving to the members of the household their food 
in due season. We gather from the passage (Luke xii. 42) that 
the ministry will be engaged in doing God’s work in the world until 
the second coming of the Lord. It is well that it is so. Bad as the 
world is, and dormant as church-life so often is around us, matters 



would be very much worse were it not for the ministers of Christ. 
The effect of their influence on religion, missions, education, on 
charitable and benevolent institutions, and on general society, is 
valuable beyond all price. To discard their help would be more 
than folly : it would be infatuation. An army without commanders 
will not win many battles ; a fleet without officers will not for any 
long time keep the seas ; and a church without pastors and teachers 
will come to be in course of time — and in a very short time, too — 
“ a cloud without water, carried along by winds.” 

Upon these grounds we come to the conclusion that in each of 
the apostolic congregations there existed a class of men whose func- 
tions were entirely different from those of the ordinary members, and 
that this is a divine and permanent institution existing for spiritual 
ends. This is usually known as the principle of a STATED MINISTRY. 
Without such an arrangement a church would be little better than 
the crowd which on the village green gathers round a street preacher ; 
it would simply be an unorganized assembly of worshippers. 

The most obvious advantages of a stated ministry are : 

1. The people are by this means enabled to avail themselves of 
the services of those of their own number who by knowledge and 
mature experience are best fitted for the oversight. 

2. An unfailing supply of instruction and direction in things 

3. Church work is likely to be better done when it is made the 
special business of a few than when left to the voluntary and fitful 
action of the many. 

4. It checks the forwardness of those who stand higher in their 
own esteem than in that of the Church, and who would fondly teach 
at a time when they may need to learn. 

Ecclesiastical changes are sometimes sudden, but it would be 
remarkable if any approved and general institution of the apostolic 
age passed away so rapidly as to leave no trace of itself upon the 
age which immediately succeeded. Nobody has ever said so of the 
Christian ministry, which in some shape has existed in all ages since. 
We can see how it has left its track deeply on the earliest uninspired 
Christian literature. 

The “ Didache,” though published in 1883 for the first time, is 
received by the most distinguished theologians as the oldest unin- 
spired theological piece of writing now extant, and is generally 
understood to be the composition of some unknown Christian who 
wrote about the year go A.D. He speaks of the ministry' thus : 

“ Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek 
and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved ; for they too minister to you the 



ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore, despise them not, for they are those 
that are the honored [men] among you, with the prophets and teachers.” * 

Although the words clergy and laity do not occur in the New 
Testament in the sense in which we apply them, the distinction 
which they mark between the official and private members of the 
Church existed in the apostolic age, and the popular though some- 
what inaccurate language which marks that distinction soon came 
into general use. Clement of Rome, who, next to the author of the 
“ Didache, ” is the oldest uninspired Christian writer, when speaking 
of the Jewish priesthood and their ministrations, says : “ The layman 
is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”']' The reference is 
to the official and non-official classes among the Jews ; but from this 
it was an easy step to apply such language to the arrangements of 
the Christian Church. But apart from names, the distinction ex- 
isted in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles. Writ- 
ing about the year 95 A.D., Clement states the well-known fact : 

“ And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the apostles] appointed the 
first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and 
deacons of those who should afterward believe.” % 

“ Ye therefore who laid the foundation of this sedition submit yourselves to the pres- 
byters, and receive correction so as to repent.” § 

It thus appears that the men who lived during the lifetime of some 
of the apostles, and who on that ground alone have some claim to 
be heard, speak of certain persons, whom they designate prophets, 
teachers, bishops, deacons, presbyters. Clement in particular speaks 
of bishops and deacons who were appointed by the apostles, and 
who stood in a peculiar relation to other believers ; and he adds that 
in the circumstances in which the Church at Corinth was then placed, 
it was the duty of its members to submit to the advice and reproof 
of its presbyters. 

It might easily be shown by similar extracts from the early Chris- 
tian writers that the distinction which commenced in the apostolic 
age existed through the second century and onward. In no respect 
has the distinction between teachers and taught been obliterated 
since, although small obscure sects have often made the attempt. 
The development for ages after lay rather in the other direction, 
making the distinction between rulers and ruled wider than it was at 
first. Originally there was no distinction, except that some mem- 
bers, on the ground of certain gifts and qualifications, were selected 
and appointed to discharge certain functions for the good of other 

* Didache, xv., x, 2. 
t First Epistle to Corinthians, 42. 

f First Epistle, 40. 
§ First Epistle, 57. 



members. But gradually the notion became common that the min- 
istry, in virtue of their office, were a superior caste, and as such pos- 
sessed a degree of holiness not to be expected in ordinary Chris- 
tians. This notion dates from an early period in the third century, 
though it was in process of formation from an earlier time ; but from 
that date onward the distance between them grew greater. 

To aid in this separation, three ideas, all of which had their germ 
in the Ante-Nicene age, very much contributed. These ideas were 
that the ministry constituted in some peculiar manner the heritage of 
God ; that they are real priests, and as such are entitled to approach 
God in a special manner on behalf of others ; and that celibacy im- 
parts to this priesthood a sanctity to which married Christians have 
no claim. 


The name is a derivative from nhi/pos, a lot, and in its secondary 
sense it means a portion assigned by lot , an inheritance. In I. Pet. 
v. 3 it is applied to the people as distinguished from the church- 
officers, where the apostle enjoins the presbyters not to lord it over 
the heritage [tgov u\?ipoov~\ of God — that is, over the church-mem- 
bers. Nowhere in the New Testament is it applied to the ministry 
as distinguished from the private members of the Church ; so that 
the Christian people, on Scriptural grounds, are better entitled to any 
honor that may be contained in the name. But as the officers, by 
divine appointment, are set apart to special duties, which in ordinary 
circumstances others are not to perform, it was supposed that God 
for this reason took a special interest in them, and that they who 
are employed in the service of His saints are in no common degree 
His inheritance or possession. The name nXijpoi, or clergy , became 
gradually appropriated to the ministry, either, says Jerome, “ be- 
cause they are the Lord’s inheritance, or because the Lord is their 
inheritance.” At first the name was applied to all grades of church- 
officers, even janitors and widows, but in the end was limited to the 
higher orders. 

In the genuine Apostolic Fathers the ministry are never desig- 
nated clergy ; but in Tertullian, who lived at the end of the second 
century, in the Ignatian forgeries, upon which Bishop Lightfoot has 
wasted so much of his valuable time, and which, as we believe, were 
written at the beginning of the third century, and in Cyprian about 
the middle of the third, the claims on behalf of special honor for the 
clergy are very marked. 

Tertullian (190-220 A.D.), arguing against second marriages 
either for ministers or people, thus remarks : 



“ We shall be vain if we suppose that what is not lawful for priests [sacerdotibus] is 
lawful for laymen [laicis]. Are not even we laymen priests ? It is written, ‘ He hath 
made you a kingdom also, and priests to God and His Father.’ The difference between 
the order and the people is made by the authority of the Church, and by the honor 
which has acquired sanctity by the joint session of the order. Accordingly, where there 
is no session of the ecclesiastical order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest alone for 
thyself. But where three are there is a church, although they be laymen.” * 

“ How does he make monogamy the base of his disposition of the whole ecclesiastical 
order, if this rule does not hold good in regard to laymen, out of whom the ecclesiastical 
order proceeds ?” f 

“ Whence, then, are the bishops and clergy ? Are they not from all ? If all are not 
bound to monogamy, whence are monogamists among the clergy ? Must some separate 
order be instituted of monogamists, out of which to make a selection for the clerical 
body ? But when we extol and inflate ourselves against the clergy, then we are all 
priests, because ‘ He hath made us priests to God and the Father ; ’ but when we are 
challenged to a thorough equality of sacerdotal discipline, then we lay down the fillets, 
and are not equal.”! 

The two tracts from which these extracts are taken were written 
by Tertullian, after he had veered from orthodoxy and had become 
a Montanist. In both of them he argues against the unlawfulness 
of contracting a second marriage, and attempts to show that such an 
engagement is wrong for those outside the ecclesiastical order, as 
well as for those within it— that what is condemned in the clergy 
cannot be worthy of approval in the laity. He is unnecessarily strict 
in his morality, but his facts and opinions are instructive. He 
speaks, it will be seen, in terms which show that the distinction be- 
tween the ministry and people was well understood in his time. He 
is the first to speak of church-officers as clergy and as constituting an 
order ; he states that the difference between clergy and laity is 
owing to “ Church authority” and to the sanctity acquired by the 
joint-session of the order ; and he argues that if the laity claim 
equality with the clergy in point of priesthood, they ought not 
to object to be under similar moral restraints. 


The sacerdotal idea fastened itself to the ministry in the early 
ages, and made the difference between clergy and people wider than 
it otherwise would have been. 

The Scriptures are entirely silent as to a Christian minister being 
a priest [ lepsvi, sacerdos]. That term is the proper designa- 

* 11 Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesi® auctoritas, et honor per 
ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et 
offers et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres ecclesia est, licet laid .” — De 
Exhort. Castitatis, 7 (Migne, P. L. ii., 922). 

f De Monogamia, ir, in Migne, ii., 944. 

I De Monogamia, 12. 



tion of a man who, at an altar, presents a sacrifice, involving the 
destruction of life, and offers that sacrifice to a Deity, whether true 
or false. Christ, the great high-priest, did indeed offer up Himself 
in sacrifice to God ; but no apostle, prophet, presbyter, bishop, or 
deacon named as an officer of the Christian Church ever professed 
that he himself discharged such a function. Christian ministers are 
often called presbyters \_ 7 tpe 6 ftvTepoi\, or elders, but in no instance 
are they called by the name priest. Nor is the name ever applied 
to them by the Apostolic Fathers — Clement of Rome, Polycarp, or 
Hermas. It is not found in this application in J ustin Martyr, Irenasus, 
or Clement of Alexandria. Polycrates, indeed, toward the end of 
the second century, speaks* * * § of the Apostle John as a priest [ispsv s] ; 
but it is not clear that he does not use the word in that figurative 
sense in which the Scripture applies it to all saints (Rev. i. 6). Ter- 
tullian is the first extant writer to apply the name to the Christian 
ministry. The author of the “ Didache,” xiii. 3, is perhaps an ex- 
ception. He calls the prophets “ chief priests,” when enjoining the 
duty of giving them first-fruits. In addition to some of the passages 
already quoted, we give the following examples : 

The chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right of giving 
[baptism]. f It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, 
nor to teach, nor baptize, nor offer, nor claim any manly function, 
much less a portion of the priestly office.]; 

There can be no doubt also that Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage 
(248-258), intended in his use of the word to convey the whole sacer- 
dotal idea : 

“ That the Lord should not be appeased through bishops and priests ( per episcopos 
et sacerdotes ), but that the Lord’s priests being forsaken, a new tradition of sacrilegious 
appointment should arise contrary to the evangelical discipline. Ӥ 

“ It is the great honor and glory of our episcopate to have granted peace to martyrs, 
so that we as priests, who daily celebrate the sacrifices of God, may prepare offerings 
and victims for God.” || 

“ No one should call away to secular anxieties the priests and ministers of God, who 
are occupied with the service of His altar and Church.” 

* In Eusebius, E. H., v. 24. 

t Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus . — De Baptismo , 17 ; in 
Migne, i., 1218. 

f Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui ; sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec offerre, 
nec ullius virdis muneris ; nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem vindicare.— De Velandis 
Virginibus , 9 (Migne, i., 902). 

§ Epistle xxxix. 3 ; but Epistle xl., in Migne, iv., 334. 

T || ” Episcopatus nostri honor grandis et gloria est, pacem dedisse martyribus, ut sac- 
erdotes, qui sacrificia Dei quotidie celebramus, hostias Deo et victimas praeparemus.” — 
Epistle liv. 3 ; in Migne, iii., 857 ; and Epistle liii. 3, in Ante-Nicene Fathers. 

Epistle lxv. 2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, lxvi. 2, in Migne, iv., 399. 



While thus asserting the sacerdotalism of the clergy in the strong- 
est form, Cyprian did not allow to slip out of his mind the priest- 
hood of believers, which he understood correctly, as is evident from 
what he writes to the Christians then suffering in the mines : 

“ But there cannot be felt any loss of either religion or faith, most beloved brethren, 
in the fact that now there is given no opportunity there to God’s. priests for offering and 
celebrating the divine sacrifices ; yea, you celebrate and offer a sacrifice to God equally 
precious and glorious, and that will equally profit you for the retribution of heavenly 
rewards, since the sacred Scripture speaks, saying, ‘ The sacrifice of God is a broken 
spirit ; a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise.’ You offer this sacrifice to 
God ; you celebrate this sacrifice without intermission day and night, being made vic- 
tims to God and exhibiting yourselves as holy and unspotted offerings.” * 

Ever after the time of Cyprian the priesthood of the clergy 
entered into the every-day life of the Church, and even the ablest 
men assumed as a fact that it was an essential of the Christian min- 
istry. Though Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, was 
the first to give it written expression, Jerome, in the fifth century, 
does not hesitate to say that “it is no church which has no 
priests.’’ f The notion took origin not in a desire to imitate the 
pagan practices, or to adopt pagan language — which to Christians 
of the second century was repulsive — but is owing to such considera- 
tions as these : 

1. The figurative application of the term priests in the New Testa- 
ment to all Christians. From this the transition was easy to the 
clergy, as being the most conspicuous and representative Christians. 

2. The local church was supported and the Lord’s table supplied 
by gifts from the people, which the presiding minister presented to 
God on their behalf. This, instead of being viewed as an act of 
the congregation, represented by the bishop or pastor, came to be 
regarded as the personal act of the officiator, who, like a priest of 
old, presented gifts and offerings to God. 

3. The notion was confirmed by a supposed analogy between the 
bishop, presbyter, and deacon of the Christian Church and the high- 
priest, priest, and Levite of the Jewish system. The Jewish high- 
priest, as we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, finds his true 
antitype in the Lord Jesus, the high-priest of our profession ; but 
in the third century this was forgotten ; the elder was by them 
counted as a priest and the bishop as the high-priest. 

4. When priest became the common name for bishop and presby- 
ter — the former being the summits sacerdos and the latter the saeer- 

* Epistle Ixxvii. 3, in Migne, iv., 417 ; and in Ante-Nicene Fathers, lxxvi. 3. 
f “ Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotes.” — Dial. adv. Luciferianos. 21 (Migne, 
P. L. xxiii., 175). 



dos merely — this naturally led on to other changes. A priest implies 
an altar, and an altar requires a sacrifice. The communion table 
began to be called the altar, no doubt figuratively at first ; but as 
with the term priest, so with the term altar, the figure was soon turned 
into fact. The real priest needed a real altar, and the real altar 
demanded a real sacrifice. How strange that out of this false notion 
of priesthood there developed in the most simple and natural way 
such doctrines and practices as the altar, the sacrifice, transubstanti- 
ation, the mass, and the elevation of the host ! 


Although some of the apostles were married men, and although a 
fully qualified bishop must be the “ husband of one wife,” yet the 
impression grew up by degrees that celibacy was the condition best 
suited to the times, but in reality a purer and holier state. Even 
married bishops, like Gregory of Nyssa, entertained that opinion. 
In the earliest ages marriage was permitted ; the Nicene Council de- 
clined to forbid it ; nevertheless, the feeling grew that celibacy was 
better suited to those who held office in the Church. In the end the 
practice came to be in the Greek Church that one marriage was per- 
mitted to the inferior clergy, if contracted prior to ordination, while 
to the superior clergy marriage at any time was forbidden. This 
practice dates from the fourth century, and still exists. In the 
Roman Church it required a keen struggle to put down clerical mar- 
riage, and it was not till late in the Middle Ages that clerical celi- 
bacy became universal. To live a single life was popularly believed 
to be an act of uncommon self-denial, and it imparted to the clergy 
an odor of sanctity, which added to their power. 

When to this we add that the social position of the clergy was 
entirely altered by the religious revolution which, under Constantine, 
made Christianity dominant in the empire, we see how they hence- 
forth hold a different rank and assume an entirely different tone. 
Bishops who previously wrought at trades or, in some cases, fed flocks 
of wild animals upon the mountains, are no longer maintained by 
manual labor or physical toil. The churches are permitted to re- 
ceive gifts and to hold landed property. The clergy are exempted 
from serving the State in any civil or military capacity. Privileges 
in regard to jurisdiction and intercession are conferred upon the 
bishops. This at once raised the bishops to a high position over 
the ordinary ministry, and the whole clerical order over the heads of 
the laity. 

A further development of the ministry dates from the third cen- 



tury, in the addition of new orders to those named in the New Testa- 
ment. Tertullian speaks of reader , which can scarcely be called a 
new office ; but about 251 Cornelius, the Roman bishop, addressed 
a letter to Fabius of Antioch, in which he mentions that there were 
at that time in the church over which he presided “ forty-six pres- 
byters, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, exor- 
cists, readers, and janitors — in all fifty-two,” with fifteen hundred 
widows and poor people.* The design of the new offices was to 
lend importance to public worship and to provide a kind of gradu- 
ated service, in order to train clergy for higher position. The com- 
mon practice of candidates for the ministry was to enter as door- 
keepers, and to rise by degrees through all the grades, until they 
reached, if they were able, the highest office of all. As we advance 
further on in the direction of mediaeval times, we meet with canons, 
archdeacons, deans, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, popes — names 
and offices not met with in the New Testament Church. We need 
scarcely add that this division and multiplication of offices consti- 
tuted in itself no small departure from the simple arrangements of 
the apostolic age. 

The common action taken by the Reformed churches in the six- 
teenth century was to sweep away the hierarchy which had been 
the product of th.e unnecessary multiplication of offices, and to return 
to the primitive model as nearly as the altered circumstances of the 
age permitted. The higher offices— pope, cardinal, patriarch — were 
cut off at the one end, and the subdeacon and acolyte were lopped 
off at the other. When titles of honor and useless offices were thus 
set aside, there remained the primitive offices of bishop, presbyter, 
and deacon, or, as we would now call them, pastor, elder, and deacon. 
Compulsory celibacy was abolished, and sacerdotalism was laid aside. 
The primitive offices of the second century remained ; and although 
the name clergy was popularly retained, because it marked an actual 
distinction and ceased to suggest the offensive idea of its origin, yet 
it was well understood that the only difference between official and 
private Christians is a difference of gift and authority and function, 
but not of grace or of caste. It is never, perhaps, possible in one 
age to restore perfectly the practices and forms of another ; but the 
close approach which the Reformed churches made to the apostolic 
model on the subject of the ministry may be most accurately judged 
from the declarations contained in their public symbols, of which 
the following are a specimen : 

“ The Church cannot exist without pastors for instruction, whom we should respect 

* Eusebius, E. H., v. i. 43. 



and reverently listen to when they are properly called and exercise their office faith- 
fully.” * 

“ There must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer 
the sacraments ; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, join the council 
of the Church.” f 

“ To gather and constitute a Church for Himself, and to govern and preserve the same, 
God always used ministers, and uses them yet, and moreover will use them so long as 
the Church is on earth.” 1 

“ In the policy of the Church some are appointed to be rulers, and the rest of the 
members thereof to be ruled. . . . The whole policy of the Church consisteth in three 
things — viz., doctrine, discipline, and distribution. . . . According to the parts of this 
division ariseth a threefold sort of office-bearers in the Church, of ministers or preachers, 
elders or governors, and deacons or distributors. And all these may be called by one 
general word — ministers of the Church.” § 

“ That it is necessary the Church should have pastors, . . . together with elders and 
deacons, after the manner of the Primitive Church.” H 

It is unnecessary to quote the Westminster “ Form of Church 
Government” or other Reformed Church symbols. It will be found, 
on examination, that they affirm the following truths in regard to 
the ministry : 

1. The old Scriptural distinction between the teachers and the 
taught, the rulers and the ruled. 

2. That the church-officers of the apostolic age were of two 
kinds — the extraordinary, who have now ceased, and the ordinary, 
who still remain. 

3. That the ordinary are of three kinds — ministers, elders, and 

4. Each class has a special work prescribed for it : doctrine is as- 
signed to the ministers, discipline to the elders, and distribution to 
the deacons. 

5. The design of the ministry or pastorate is the edification of the 
Church and the perfecting of the saints. 

This substantially is what the Holy Scriptures teach upon the 
subject, and the principles thus affirmed, however imperfectly car- 
ried out in practice in some of the churches, have not been modified 
in theory for three hundred years. 

Still, there is at all times, and never more so than in our own, a 
disposition in churches to drift away from the old moorings. This 
arises from a love of novelty, a desire of exciting interest in others, 
the hope of reaching something better than we possess. Our ten- 
dency is not, however, very strongly toward hierarchical develop- 

* French Confession (1559), xxv. f Belgic Confession (1561), xxx. 

t Second Helvetic Confession (1566), art. xviii. 1. 

§ Second Book of Discipline (1572), ch. ii. 1-3. 

J| Waldensian Confession (1655), art. xxxi. 



ment. The experience of the mediaeval church has operated as a 
warning in that direction. It is rather to impose upon old offices 
new names, and names not always justified by necessity, and some- 
times not even improvements. The evangelist of the New Testa- 
ment is now a missionary ; the bishop of the second century is now 
a pastor or minister when instructing a congregation, but a moder- 
ator when presiding in presbytery ; the deacon is in some out-of-the- 
way places a committee-man ; and the deaconness is a Bible-wom- 
an. This very nomenclature, by its rugged uncouthness, reminds 
us that we live in other times and among modern institutions. 
When we have the substantial reality of what existed in the New 
Testament Church we need not, however, be greatly shocked, al- 
though the nomenclature be somewhat grotesque. 

Among minor sects there is manifested occasionally a tendency to 
dispense with the services of a stated ministry. This first appeared 
among the followers of Fox and Barclay, who abolished sacraments 
as well as the pastorate. The same tendency, in a mitigated form, 
has appeared in modern times among other bodies, who would retain 
the ordinances, but leave the administration of them to private mem- 
bers of the ' congregation. Necessity no doubt would justify a 
temporary arrangement of that nature in cases where no regularly 
appointed ministry could be obtained. But deliberately to spurn a 
gift which the risen Redeemer bestows for our spiritual good is a 
rash and perilous deed. It is to act on our own wisdom rather than 
on the divine. It is of design to fling contempt on an arrangement 
which the Head of the Church has made for the edification of His 
body. To wilfully thrust aside a divine institution is a sin not so 
much of ignorance as of presumption. It is no light thing for men 
in the present age, however endowed with grace and knowledge, to 
virtually abolish, so far as it is in their power, an ordinance set up 
by apostles and deriving its origin from God. Let man say as he 
pleases, the divine method is the best. A church without a min- 
istry may in very exceptional circumstances flourish for a time, but 
the doom of decay is written on its face, and it cannot survive the 
wear and tear of centuries ; on the contrary, there is no reason why 
a well-organized church, provided with a sufficient ministry, may not 
live and prosper for ages, except it is swept away by some over- 
whelming calamity, exterminated by the sword of war, or, in punish- 
ment for its unfaithfulness, made desolate by the judgments of God. 

Thomas Witherow. 

Londonderry , Ireland. 



HE name of John Todd belongs to a classic region in American 

Church history, and introduces us at once to a courtly com- 
pany. It was in old Hanover Presbytery, Virginia, and associated 
with James Waddel, David Rice, and Archibald Alexander,* * * § that 
John Todd of Indiana passed his early years. 

His father, John Todd, was the companion of Samuel Davies, and 
before the latter’s transfer, in 1759, from Virginia to the presidency 
of Princeton College, “ was called to wear the mantle of Davies,” f 
and “ was for many years the leading man in the Presbytery east of 
the Blue Ridge.” \ 

The senior Todd immigrated to America about A.D. 1740 § from 
the province of Ulster, Ireland, where his ancestors had taken 
refuge, more than a century before, from the persecution of Presby- 
terians in Scotland by Charles the First. He is said to have been a 
weaver.! He graduated from Princeton College in 1749, a member 
of the second class admitted to a degree, and was taken on trials by 
the New Brunswick Presbytery May 7, 1750. About ten days 
after Mr. Davies ” represented before the Synod of New York the 
great necessities of the people in the back parts of Virginia, where 

* Cf. “ Life of Alexander,” p. 210. 

j- Gillett, 1st ed., vol. i., p. 94. Cf. Briggs’ “ American Presbyterianism,” pp. 

t Foote, “ Sketches of Virginia,’’ second series, p. 47. 

§ In “ John Todd, the Story of His Life,” Harpers, 1876, occurs (p. 526) the follow- 
ing : “ There are in this country three distinct families of Yorkshire Todds. One of 
these sprung from an ancestor of unknown name who settled in Virginia, whence his 
descendants have spread into Kentucky. Thomas Todd, associate justice of the United 
States Court, was one of them. He married the widow of Major George Washington 
(a nephew of General George Washington), and sister of Mrs. President Madison. 
James Madison Todd, of Frankfort, Ky., is a son of Justice Todd, as was also Colonel 
C. S. Todd, aide to General Harrison, add the first minister of our government to the 
United States of Colombia.” The elder Todd of this narrative is the “ ancestor of un- 
known name” above alluded to. Cf. Davidson, “ Kentucky,” p. 67, foot-note. 

|| Webster, p. 608. 



multitudes were remarkably awakened and reformed several years 
ago, and ever since have been thirsting after the ordinances of 
God.” * Thereupon the Synod recommended “ to the Presbytery 
of New Brunswick to endeavor to prevail with Mr. John Todd, upon 
his being licensed, to take a journey thither.” He was licensed 
November 13, 1750, and from a report made to Synod in the 
autumn of that year, it appears “ that Mr. Todd is preparing speed- 
ily to go.” It was at first designed that he should locate in Prince 
Edward or in Charlotte County, but the objections raised by the 
General Court, in sympathy with the Church of England, made it 
impossible to obtain houses of worship there. Mr. Todd was 
accordingly invited to occupy four of the places licensed for Mr. 
Davies. f A call was laid before New Brunswick Presbytery, May 
22, 1751, and on his acceptance of it he was ordained. The civil 
license obtained, as required by law in such cases, curiously illus- 
trates the difficulties in the way of “ dissenting” preachers in those 
days. The following is a copy of the record : 

Present, the Governor, 
William Fairfax,. 

John Blair, 

William Nelson, Esqrs., 
William Dawson, D.D., 
John Lewis, 

Wednesday, April 22, 1752 

Thomas Nelson, 

Philip Grymes, 

Peyton Randolph, 

Richard Corbin, 

Philip Ludwell, Esqrs. 

* See letter of Jonathan Edwards, November 24, 1752, in which he also alludes to a 
recent interview in New Jersey with Mr. Davies, who told him then “ of the probability 
of the settlement of Mr. Todd, a young man of good learning and of a pious disposi- 
tion, in a part of Virginia near to him." 

f Seven such places had with difficulty been secured. Foote, ‘‘ Sketches of Virginia,” 
second series, p. 45. In 1618 a law had been passed in Virginia which enacted that 
“ every person should go to church on Sundays and holy days, or lie neck and heels 
that night, and be a slave to the colony the following week." For the second offence 
he was to be a slave for a month, and for the third, a year and a day. Cf. Stith’s 
“ History,” p. 148. In 1642 a law was passed providing that “ no minister shall be 
permitted to officiate in the country but such as shall produce to the governor a testi- 
monial that he hath received his ordination from some bishop in England ; and shall 
then subscribe to be conformable to the orders and constitutions of the Church of Eng- 
land ; and if any other person, pretending himself to be a minister, shall, contrary to this 
act, presume to teach or preach, publicly or privately, the governor and council are 
hereby desired and empowered to suspend and silence the person so offending ; and, 
upon his obstinate persistence, to compel him to depart the country with the first con- 
venience.” Cf. Bishop, “ Memoir of Rice,” p. 38, foot-note. Mr. Samuel Morris and 
his friends, who were accustomed to meet at his house, known as Morris’s Reading- 
house, for the purpose of reading on the Sabbath Luther on the “ Galatians,” Boston’s 
“Fourfold State,” Whitefield’s “Sermons,” etc., were called upon by the Court to 
assign reasons for their absence from the parish churches, and to “ declare to what 



John Todd, a dissenting minister, this day in Court took the oath 
appointed by the Act of Parliament to be taken instead of the oath 
of allegiance and supremacy and the abrogation oath, and subscribed 
the last-mentioned oath, and repeated and subscribed the test. And 
thereupon, on his motion, he is allowed to officiate as an assistant to 
Samuel Davies, a dissenting minister, in such places as are already 
licensed by this Court for meeting of dissenters.” 

This official paper looks more like a restraining order than a 
license, and doubtless was intended as such. But the compulsory 
arrangement “ proved very agreeable to the seven congregations,” 
says Foote, ” as it left them all in connection with Mr. Davies ; and 
equally pleasing to Mr. Davies, as it gave him more frequent oppor- 
tunities for those missionary excursions in which he delighted, the 
influence of which is felt to this day ; and no less acceptable to Mr. 
Todd, who enjoyed the experience and counsel of his friend, with 
the privilege of missionary excursions.” 

Mr. Todd was accordingly installed, November 12, 1752, by 
Hanover Presbytery, ” into the pastoral charge of the Presbyterian 
congregation in and about the upper part of Hanover County, Vir- 
ginia.”* * The discourse was by Samuel Davies, and was afterward 
published ” at the desire of the hearers and humbly dedicated to the 
reverend clergy of the established church in Virginia, by S. Davies, 
V.D.M.” f 

Todd was now established in the work which he was permitted to 
prosecute in Virginia for nearly forty-two years. The field was soon 
visited, and a remarkable impulse given to religion, by Vhitefield. 
To him Todd writes, June 26, 1755 : “ The impressions of the day 
you preached last here, at my meeting-house, can, I believe, never 
wear out of my mind ; never did I feel anything of the kind more 
distressing than to part with you, and that not merely for my own 

denomination they belonged.” Happily it occurred to them to suggest that they were 
Lutherans ; and as no law or precedent was discovered to direct the Court how to pro- 
ceed against the Lutherans, the suspected persons were released. Bishop’s “ Rice.” 
PP- 43. 44- 

* At Davies’ suggestion Jonathan Edwards had previously, when dismissed from 
Northampton, been called to this field. See “ Bellamy Papers,” and Webster, p. 609 . 

f Extracts from the “ Dedication” will be found in Foote. By a happy fortune the 
manuscript of this remarkable discourse has found a place of security in the region 
whither Todd’s descendants migrated, and where many of them have been laid to rest. 
After a day in the library of Wabash College I was recalled by the president to examine 
a case of relics, where I discovered this very MS. of Davies, thick, firmly-sewed, yellow, 
but perfectly preserved. The penmanship is precise, the wide margin crowded with 
scriptural references, the Greek mottoes from Clemens Alexandrinus and Chrysostom, 
beautifully transcribed, points and all, and the psalm to be sung at the close written 
down entire. 



sake, but that of the multitudes that stood longing to hear more of 
the news of salvation from you. I still have the lively image of the 
people of God drowned in tears, multitudes of hardy gentlemen 
that perhaps never wept for their poor souls before, standing aghast, 
all with signs of eagerness to attend to what they heard, and their 
significant tears expressive of the sorrow of their hearts that they 
had so long neglected their souls. I returned home like one that 
had sustained some amazing loss ; and that I might contribute more 
than ever to the salvation of perishing multitudes among us, I 
resolved I would labor to obtain and exert more of that sound fire 
which the God of all grace had so abundantly bestowed upon you 
for the good of mankind. To the praise of rich grace be it spoken, 
I have had the comfort of many solemn Sabbaths since I saw you, 
when, I am persuaded, the power of God has attended His word, for 
sundry weeks together ; and ’in my auditory, which was more 
crowded through your means than it had been before, I could scarce 
see an individual whose countenance did not indicate the concern of 
their souls about eternal things. And, blessed be God, those ap- 
pearances are not yet wholly fled from our assembly.” 

I was by order of Presbytery to attend the installation of Mr. 
Henry, the 4th of the month, at Lunenburg, about a hundred miles 
south-west of this place, and we administered the sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper the Sabbath following. We preached Thursday, 
Friday, Saturday, Sabbath, and Monday. There was comfortable 
evidence of the power of God with us every day ; believers were 
more quickened, and sinners were much alarmed. Many of them 
talked with Mr. Henry and me with great desire to know what they 
should do to be saved. One I remember came to me trembling and 
astonished, the nearest image I ever saw of the trembling jailer, cry- 
ing, ‘ What shall I do to get an interest in Christ ? ’ In my return 
home I made an excursion to preach to a number of people who had 
never before heard a ‘ New Light,’ as they call me. I hope the 
word of God was attended with divine power to many of their 
hearts.” * 

The negotiations which had already been opened to send Davies 
to England in behalf of Princeton College, and which resulted in his 
transfer to the presidency of that institution, alarmed the Virginian 
Presbyterians, who looked up to Davies as their father. No one 
was quicker to take the alarm than Todd, on whom the change 
would impose new and grave responsibilities. Of him Davies thinks 
when contemplating the Atlantic voyage. “ I am. also encouraged,” 

* See Gillies’ “ Collections.” The above letter is reprinted by Foote. 



he says, “ from the reflection that my congregation will not probably 
suffer in my absence, as Mr. Wright, I expect, is well accomplished 
for the place ; and my cautious and prudent Rev. Mr. Todd will be 
so near at hand to assist in cases of difficulty.” * * * § Afterward, when 
the invitation to Princeton came, he was at first disposed to decline 
it ;f but when he finally concluded to go, Todd became the superin- 
tendent of affairs and bishop for our Church ” in the back parts of 

It is to be observed that throughout this period much labor was 
bestowed by the Presbyterians upon the slave population. “ Last 
Sunday I had a sacrament,” wrote Davies, “ assisted by my good 
brother and next neighbor, Mr. Todd. It was a time of unusual 
anxiety to me. I hope it was a refreshing time to some hungry 
souls. I had the pleasure of seeing the table of the Lord adorned 
with about forty-four black faces.” % As early as 1755 Todd had an 
hundred of these people “ under his instruction.” § 

Public affairs also began to require the attention of our ministers. 
The discussions and conflicts which brought on the Revolution were 
warmly maintained in the Valley of Virginia. Our ministers and 
people were loyal to liberty. “ That man,” says Archibald Alexan- 
der, “ will go on a desperate adventure who shall proceed to hunt 
out the Presbyterian Tories of the Revolution. Our ministers were 
Whigs, patriots, haters of tyranny, known abettors of the very earli- 
est resistance, and often soldiers in the field.” || It is not surprising, 
then, that Todd was “ a staunch Whig.” T At the first meeting of 
the Presbytery of Hanover, after the Declaration of Independence, 
that body addressed a memorial to the Virginia House of Delegates, 
identifying themselves with fhe patriot cause. It was signed by 
John Todd as moderator.** In 1785, on the 13th of August, at 
Bethel, Augusta County, an important convention was held to op- 
pose a scheme for general taxation in support of religion —a scheme 
which Patrick Henry and others advocated. Todd was chairman of 
the convention. ff 

To his other work the care of a classical school was now to be 

* Davies’ Journal, July 25, 1753. 

f Davies’ “ Sermons,” Barnes ed., vol. iii., p. 467, foot-note. 

\ Foote, “ Sketches of Virginia,” second series, p. 47. 

§ Ibid., first series, p. 286. 

|| Princeton Review, vol. xix., p. 482. Cf. Miller, “Life of Rodgers,” p. 146, and 
Bishop, “ Memoir of Rice,” ch. xv. 

T Foote, “ Sketches of Virginia,” second series, p. 47. 

** Davidson, “ History of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky,” p. 37, and Foote, 
“ Sketches,” first series, pp. 323-24. 

ft Davidson, “ Kentucky,” p. 37 ; Foote, “ Sketches,” first series, pp 342-44. 



added. The chief motive seems to have been the preparation of 
young men for the ministry. David Rice, a member of Todd’s con- 
gregation, who afterward became “ Father Rice,” of Kentucky, 
began the study of Latin at this school.* * * § James YVaddel, Wirt’s 
“ Blind Preacher,” who had emigrated from Ulster, in Ireland, and 
whose family, it is possible, was there not unknown to Todd, became 
an assistant instructor, and, under the principal’s direction, pursued 
the study of divinity. f The needed furniture of books was secured 
for the school from England, the London merchant, John Thornton, 
contributing fifty pounds sterling to promote the object, and the 
Rev. Dr. Gordon, with whom the correspondence was carried on, 
and who interested others in the enterprise, himself giving liberally. J 
This donation of books was destined to serve most important ends 
beyond the original design. By and by, with Mr. Todd’s increasing 
age, the classical school declined. No successor appeared to con- 
duct it. Other academies, with more ambitious claims, had now 
been established. It was the venerable preceptor’s happy sugges- 
tion, therefore, that the library be transferred to Kentucky, for the 
use of the students of Transylvania Seminary. In that region it was 
natural that he should be interested, where his old pupil Rice was 
making himself famous, and where James Moore, § who married 
Todd’s daughter, was to have the new institution in charge. Ac- 
cordingly, among the names of the founders of Transylvania Univer- 
sity that of the Rev. John Todd, of Hanover Presbytery in Virginia, 
stands first, j| with that of his nephew, Colonel John Todd, member 
of the Virginia Legislature from the county of Fayette. 

In the later years of his life Mr. Todd was unable to perform all 
the duties of his pastoral charge. Severe labors in the Virginia 
wilderness, during the ardor of youth, had exhausted his vigor. 
Compelled to cease entirely from preaching tours in “ the parts 
beyond,” and often detained by ill-health from the Church courts, 
both he and James Waddel were severely criticised by the younger 
men, who “ knew not Joseph,” though it was into Joseph’s labors 
that they were so cheerfully entering. A foolish slander as to his 
laxity in the admission of candidates to the Communion appeared to 
Todd’s sensitiveness deserving of reply, and he made his way to 

* Bishop, “ Memoir of Rice,” pp. 28, 55. 

f Foote, “ Sketches,” first series, p. 351 ; Sprague, “ Annals,” vol. iii. , p. 236. 

t Davidson, “ Kentucky,” pp. 292, 293. 

§ The Rev. Dr. James Moore was originally a Presbyterian ; but, upon his trials for 
licensure, meeting what he, perhaps rightly, esteemed too little charity, he took orders in 
the Episcopal Church. The Rev. Dr. Daniel McCalla, of South Carolina, also married 
a daughter of Mr. Todd. 

|| Davidson, “ Kentucky,” p. 289. 



Presbytery in the Cove congregation, Albemarle, July, 1793. Hav- 
ing fully vindicated himself, he set out for home on Saturday, the 
27th, but on the same day was found in the road lifeless. Either 
his spirited horse had thrown him, or he had suffered from an 
apoplectic attack. 

John Todd of Virginia was evidently a man of solid and useful 
rather than brilliant qualities. With a vigorous and well-trained 
mind, in circumstances offering abundant scope for the highest abili- 
ties, he gave himself with entire devotion to the service of the 
Church. He was an impressive preacher. “ Heard Mr. Todd 
preach an honest sermon,” is Davies’ record in his diary. Colonel 
Gordon said, on hearing him at the Communion, November 1, 
1761 : ‘‘I never heard a sermon, but one from Mr. Davies, that I 
heard with more attention and delight. Oh, if the Lord would be 
pleased to send us a minister of as much piety as Mr. Todd !” * 

It was of such a father that John Todd, the younger, was born, in 
Louisa County, Virginia, October, 1772. The region itself was, in 
its variety and beauty of scenery, well fitted to quicken the faculties 
of a boy, and the manse of Providence parish, which was at the 
same time the Seminary, by its daily routine fostering a high intel- 
lectual life, also gave frequent welcome to guests who would have 
shone in the most brilliant assembly. Here the pastor’s son ob- 
tained his first knowledge of books, and here he was moulded by the 
stately manners of the society around him. The preparatory course 
having been finished at the parsonage and at Washington Academy, 
he was sent to Dickinson College, Pennsylvania, where he gradu- 
ated. His theological studies at Princeton were in the days of Dr. 
John Witherspoon, and when they were completed he returned to 
Virginia to begin his ministerial career in his native county. 
Licensed by Hanover Presbytery, September 13, 1800, he “ preached 
his first sermon where his father preached his last.” f For some 
time he served the churches left vacant by his father. Having 
previously, in 1795, married, he removed to the West in 1806, ;{; 
and settled in Louisville, Kentucky, where he kept alive the family 
traditions in establishing a school. He first connected himself, Oc- 
tober 10, 1809, with the Presbytery of West Lexington, but was 
received, October 3, 1810, by Transylvania Presbytery. Though 
occupied with his school, he was accustomed to preach at various 
points in Kentucky, and sometimes spent a Sabbath on the northern 
side of the Ohio in the Territory of Indiana. 

* Webster, “ History,” p. 609. f Foote, “ Sketches,” second series, p. 49. 

| Not 1809, the date which Davidson, followed by Foote, gives. 



It was just at this time that Craighead’s erratic theology was pro- 
ducing great excitement throughout Kentucky. Notwithstanding 
the previous admonition of Synod (October, 1806), he had in 1809 
preached and printed the famous sermon on Regeneration. He was 
understood to maintain, with other clearly Pelagian tenets, that 
faith and sanctification are effects of the written word, apart from 
any direct agency of the Holy Spirit. His views had attracted a 
considerable number of independent minds, and among them John 
Todd. It is not unlikely that the fascinations of his oratory, 
acknowledged by jurists like John Breckinridge, had prejudiced 
Todd’s judgment. The latter, however, maintained a correspond- 
ence with his father’s former neighbor, Dr. Archibald Alexander, 
with reference to the points in dispute, seeking light and counsel. 
Such good-tempered discussion, with his own solitary reflection, 
would probably have led a candid man like Todd gradually back to 
the accepted theology ; but these were times of war. Kentucky 
Presbyterians had suffered too much annoyance from heretics to be 
in a patient mood. They drew the scimetar at once. Todd, having 
been accused of teaching Craigheadism, was arraigned by Transyl- 
vania Presbytery, August 14, 1812, and after trial was admonished. 
This Presbyterial onset not being calculated to calm one’s judgment, 
it is, perhaps, not surprising that the accused continued to preach 
the views which such admonition had failed to enlighten. Upon the 
advice of Synod he was therefore suspended, April 15, 1813, but 
on October 13, 1817, the controversy was amicably adjusted.* 

It will be remembered that Dr. James Moore, Todd’s sister’s hus- 
band, had experienced what he and his friends considered needless 
rigor when seeking licensure from Presbytery. Perhaps it will now 
be generally thought that a larger measure of kindness might have 
retained that valuable man f in the Presbyterian Church. At any 
rate, this household tradition must have affected the mind of Todd 
and rendered a judicial process the more offensive. That, 'indeed, 

. * Minutes Transylvania Presbytery, vol. iv., pp. 35, 52, 119 ; Minutes Synod of 
Kentucky, vol. ii. , pp. 31, 36, 61, 105. Cf. Davidson, “ Kentucky,” p. 276. The 
tone of Davidson’s account of this affair is needlessly oflensive. His book is valuable — 
the result of independent study of original documents, and written not unattractively. 
It is, however, too warm for history. In his notice of the Cumberland difficulty', of 
Craighead and of the separation of 1S37, he put himself too near the fray. At the dis- 
tance of forty years his expletives seem quite too fierce. The treatment of Todd is only 
a single instance illustrating the justice of Dr. Alexander’s criticism — “ We think that 
in some cases there is too much minuteness of detail, as in describing certain irregular- 
ities ; and in others there is what may be called too rigid .a fidelity in recording facts 
which might have been better left in perpetual oblivion.” See Princeton Review , vol. 
xix., p. 308. 

f Davidson, “ Kentucky,” pp. 295-96, foot-note. 



docs not seem to be the successful means of curing, though doubtless 
it is sometimes the necessary instrument for cutting off heretics. 
But in this same region, where the ability and taste for theological 
debate yet survive, Todd had afterward the satisfaction of illustrat- 
ing the advantage of milder methods. A young Kentucky preacher, 
John A. McClung, who was creating a considerable sensation by his 
powers of argument and oratory, early in his career was distressed 
by serious doubts. “ He promptly stated his condition to Presby- 
tery,” says his biographer, “ and asked to be relieved. In the dis- 
cussion which ensued a motion was made to go to the extent of 
expulsion. The Rev. John Todd, a noble and venerable soldier of 
the cross, rose and said : ‘ Brethren, I hope no such action will be 
taken. Brother McClung is honest ; he is a seeker after truth, but 
under a cloud. Give him time. Relieve him as he asks. Do noth- 
ing more. The light will again dawn upon him, and he will surely 
return-.’ ” * The counsel of Todd was followed, and the light did 
dawn. A valuable reputation was spared, and the usefulness of a 
minister’s life defended. 

During Mr. Todd’s residence at Louisville he had occasionally 
preached, as early as 1808 apparently, at Charlestown, Indiana, 
whither he sometimes took his family in the summer to avoid the 
heat of a southern city. These excursions were continued until the 
autumn of 1817, when, in October, the disagreement with Presby- 
tery having been adjusted, he removed to Indiana, and took the 
pastoral charge of Charlestown Church. f Here he remained, a part 
of the time also maintaining a school, until September, 1824,^ when 
he returned to Kentucky and settled at Paris, there establishing a 
classical academy. Though his health was now somewhat impaired, 
he also continued to preach as opportunity was presented, but in 
1831 crossed the Ohio again, and took up his residence in the 
southern part of Marion County, whither two daughters, Mrs. Judge 
James Morrison and Mrs. Thomas J. Todd, had preceded him. The 
church of South Marion having been organized, he supplied it and 
the church of Eagle Creek, both now extinct, until his death, which 
occurred, unexpectedly, from apoplexy, December 13, 1839. His 
remains rest in the cemetery at Greenwood, Indiana. 

Mr. Todd had enjoyed better opportunities for literary culture in 
early life than most of his contemporaries in the Western woods, 
and naturally the tradition of his scholarship survives him. He was 

* McClung, “ Western Adventure,” p. 7. f Dickey, “ Brief History,” p. 14. 

X He was not dismissed to West Lexington Presbytery until April 5, 1S27. See 
“ Minutes iTladison Presbytery,” vol. i., pp. 45, 46. The letter of dismission was pre- 
sented to and received by Ebenezer Presbytery, April 15, 1829. 



especially strong in the Greek, employing constantly the Septuagint 
of the Old Testament and the original version of the New when 
prosecuting his Biblical studies, and not uncommonly employing the 
latter at family worship. He habitually read the Fathers in the 
original. A son of another of our Indiana pioneers retains vivid 
impressions of his “ wonderful library.” * ‘‘ It was full of the old 

books,” Mr. Kent recollects. Richard Baxter was a favorite, and in 
the peculiar views at one time entertained by Mr. Todd it was 
claimed that he was only Baxter’s disciple. The style of his preach- 
ing was controlled by his studious habits, and was rather argumen- 
tative and biblical than rhetorical. It was usually extemporaneous, 
though the preparation was careful and often written. 

By inheritance from both branches of his family Mr. Todd held a 
number of slaves, which he brought with him to Kentucky ; but as 
he did not recognize the right of slavery, he received these servants 
as a trust for which he was to be held responsible to God. He 
taught them to read the Scriptures, and gave them careful religious 
instruction. As they arrived at the age of twenty-one they received 
their freedom, a condition which at that time was not prohibited by 
the State law. 

The manners of Mr. Todd were of the old school, especially 
polite. ” I saw him at my father’s,” writes the Rev. N. S. Dickey. 
“ He came in with his hat under his arm, having taken it off before 
he reached the outer door, and with a very cordial but formal greet- 
ing met my father and mother. I noticed the old gentleman’s 
politeness and dignity, and though but a child spoke to my mother 
upon the subject. She took occasion to commend him as a model 
of deportment. ‘ Why, mother,’ said I, ‘ a neighbor’s boy declares 
that Mr. Todd takes off his hat to the niggers.’ ‘ Well,’ she 
answered, ‘ the negroes uncover their heads out of respect to Mr. 
Todd, and surely he would not allow them to excel him in courtesy. 
I wish all my sons might be as good and polite as he.’ 

Mr. Todd seems to have been as hospitable as he was urbane. 
The manse at Charlestown was a well-known ” missionary stopping- 
place.” f The old logs listened to many an hour’s noble conversa- 
tion, while around the big fire the guests and the host recounted 
God’s past mercies and laid plans for the highway in the wilderness. 

* It is probable that this library preserved a portion of the Gordon gift from England. 
Most of the books have been scattered and lost. By the courtesy of Dr. Henry G. 
Todd, of Danville, I have in my possession a volume of the Monthly Review , London, 
I753> with the autograph of Samuel Davies on the title-page, and on a fly leaf, in beauti- 
ful chirography, “John Todd’s book, io bcr , 17C0.” 
f Cf. MS. Diary of Orin Fowler. 



At that chimney-corner Martin, Crowe, Dickey, Reed, Bush, Fowler, 
Day, Goodale, and, indeed, all the pioneers of that early day found 
a welcome. 

In person Mr. Todd was rather stout, about five feet eight inches 
in height, weighing usually one hundred and eighty pounds. His 
head was bald. 

The following extracts from a letter written from Greenwood, 
February 7, 1835,* throw some light upon the occupations and 
spirit of his later years: “My settlement, after I came to this 
vicinity, was in the midst of a people very generally possessing relig- 
ion, but connected mostly with the Methodists and Baptists. Few 
as we are, however, and not generally in independent circum- 
stances, there is a readiness expressed to build a house of worship. 
One of our members, in a situation the most central for the church, 
has offered to furnish the ground and to aid in the undertaking. 
And last season they expressed a particular desire that as I was 
unsettled I should make my residence among them, with the gen- 
erous offer of aiding me in my support, furnishing ground necessaty 
during my life, and erecting for me necessary buildings, with the 
consideration that 1 should give some aid to a few young persons, 
not confining myself from other duties. This was the offer of two 
families. . . . During the last year my preaching, with little excep- 
tion, was confined to the people of this church f and New Provi- 
dence,^; to whom I preached on the Sabbath — once a month only at 
New Providence, except that occasionally I preached to them on 
other Sabbath afternoons, when in the forenoon I had preached to 
the people of South Marion.” 

The stately movement of these sentences, and their dignified 
formality, are as good as a portrait. It was evidently a Virginia 
gentleman of the olden time who held the pen. 

Hanford A. Edson. 


* The penmanship is remarkably precise, and bears a striking similarity to that of his 

t Eagle Creek Church. 

+ This now extinct organization, in the vicinity of Greenwood, is not to be confounded 
with Shelby ville, which was first called New Providence. See Dickey, “ Brief His- 
tory,” p. 9, and Sluter, “ History of Shelbyville Church,” p. 2. 



HE Church seeks at last to fulfil its great commission : it would 

preach the Gospel to every creature and disciple all nations. 
Every year home and foreign missions increase the expenditure of 
men and money, and yet never overtake the increasing demand. 
We recognize that our missionary endeavor is a reconnoissance test- 
ing the enemy’s lines. The nineteenth century prepares the way for 
tfie twentieth, and the Church’s conflict now indicates the world- 
wide conquest yet to come. Civilization unites the world and pre- 
pares the way for universal missions, as the Roman Empire prepared 
the way for the missions of the Apostolic Church. Thought circles 
the globe like the wave from Krakatau, and no nation is foreign or 
strange. The Church cannot remain isolated or provincial ; it must 
conquer the world or perish. Its divine origin and power will be 
vindicated not by apologetics, but by victory. Christ cannot divide 
the world with Gautama and Confucius, for at His name every knee 
must bow and every tongue confess, and His all-embracing dominion 
finally established will be the Church’s conclusive answer to its 
assailants. There can be no truce, no return to the comparative 
quiet of earlier times ; but the Church must summon all its powers. 
At home it can suffer no class to be “neglected,” and the con- 
sciousness of the world beyond lying in darkness is borne full upon 
it. The dwellers in every land walk our streets, and we hear their 
speech. We, too, visit them and note their dense millions, their 
ignorance, squalor, misbelief, false learning, degradation. We read 
their sacred books and see their dim strivings after God, their 
ethical standards, and regrets for sin and error. We know them to 
be of one blood with us, they and we bound in one lot of common 

The meaning of our Lord’s command grows clear. Manifestly it 
is no mere repeating of the Gospel message, but the revealing of the 
love of God in Christ. To this end fundamental truth must be dis- 
entangled from accidental and provincial accompaniments. Much of 
our Christian literature has small value on heathen soil. Consider, 



for example, the “ Evidences of Christianity the argument from the 
miracles and prophecy confounds Christianity with the more childish 
forms of Buddhism in the minds of educated men, while the votaries 
of other creeds easily recite far greater marvels from the lives of 
Buddhas and the saints. The routine arguments for inspiration are 
not convincing to firm believers in the sacred books of the East, and 
throughout whole empires Gautama and Confucius are mightier 
names than Christ. Subtile distinctions, delicate discriminations, 
fine-spun arguments, are of little weight ; Christianity shall win 
again, as it won before, by its unmistakable superiority in creed and 

The mission work of fifty years has made some small impression 
on scattered outposts, but, most of all, has revealed how deep and 
broad and massive and world-embracing are the lines untouched by 
our attack. The Church is not discouraged, but incited to fresh 
activity ; knowing the powers of darkness, it turns with new faith to 
the divine Master, and rests more fully on the promise of His Spirit 1 . 
This is the true reflex influence of missions of which so much is said. 
None the less does the conflict demand utmost economy in the use 
of the resources Christ has entrusted to His Church. Thorough 
study of the missionary problem is imperative, and antiquated 
aphorisms and a priori theories must give way to a science of mis- 
sions based on the facts of missionary experience. Such study may 
introduce important changes in theory and practice. What is essen- 
tial in Christianity, and, consequently, what should be the relation 
of denomination to denomination in this work? how far may the 
Western form of truth be modified to meet Eastern needs ? and 
what shall we say of Church polity as we consider races widely sepa- 
rated by blood, type of civilization, and measure of development ? 
are questions of prime, importance abroad, and not without signifi- 
cance to the Church at home. What should be the relation of Board 
to Church, of missionary to Board, of convert to missionary, and of 
the native Church to the mother Church ? what appliances should be 
used in mission work, and how may mission funds be expended ? are 
practical questions of great moment. What is the distinctive aim 
of foreign missions, and what are the respective parts of home and 
foreign missions in the great work of bringing the world to Christ ? 
This is perhaps the most important question of all, as its answer will 
aid in solving many difficult and disputed points. The attention of 
the Church has been turned in some measure toward the considera- 
tion of mission polity, although a puerile taste for affecting anecdote 
still widely prevails, and questions of gravest moment receive scant 
notice, even in the highest Church courts. The best thought is 



needed here as imperatively as in questions of learned research, and as 
rich results are to be secured. The theory of missions should not 
be left wholly to secretaries and missionaries. If the Church is to 
engage earnestly in mission work, and if that work bears upon the 
welfare of the Church itself, all the data for intelligent judgment 
should be given widest publicity, and theory and details receive 
patient consideration.* 

Missionaries of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches entered 
Japan in the year 1859. During the second half of these twenty-five 
years constant progress has been made. In no other field, perhaps, 
has so much been crowded into so short a time : questions of polity 
have presented themselves in quick succession, and conclusions have 
been reached under urgent necessity. These conclusions may be, 
perhaps, of general interest. 

Missionaries escape the influence of their environment no more 
than others, hence we must study Japanese history and character if 
we would know the conditions of successful work. The history 
shows two facts full of meaning : Japan has always been a borrower 
from the West, but has never submitted to a foreign rule. Letters 
and art, medicine and religion, have come from other lands, Japan, 
as we know it now, being the result of wave after wave of foreign 
influence. Chinese letters chronicle the beginning of history, and 
government was patterned after the Chinese system at a very early 
date. Buddhism at once met with warm reception from the higher 
classes, and in the course of two centuries won the nation. China 
and Corea sent art to Japan, Chinese authorities were decisive in the 
art of war, and Chinese heroes were the ideals of chivalry. Letters 
having fallen into neglect during the Middle Ages, Chinese litera- 
ture brought about a revival of learning. Chinese ethics have 
shaped the morals of the people, and Chinese rationalism has de- 
stroyed the faith of the educated classes. Seeming exceptions but 
prove the rule. During the last century a group of eminent scholars 
sought to restore the ancient ethics, literature, and religion, and to 
decry all imports. Their failure was complete ; pure Shinto is 
powerless as a religion, and pure Japanese letters have scarcely more 
students than pure Anglo-Saxon among ourselves. So, too, with 
the expulsion of foreigners in the seventeenth century ; it was the 
readiness of the Japanese to adopt Western commerce and religion, 
it was the popularity of the Europeans with nobles and people, that 

* The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
prints three times its receipts in minutest detail, but its expenditures only in aggregates 
of thousands of dollars. No doubt it meets the demands of its constituents, but the 
details of expenditure are of utmost importance to the student of missions. 



led to their overthrow. The Jesuists presumed upon their popu- 
larity and neglected the second significant fact in Japanese history ; 
not content to be friends and teachers, they sought to become mas- 
ters. But no foreigner has borne rule in Great Japan. Japan bor- 
rows, but does not surrender its independence. It stamps on its 
new possessions a character peculiarly its own, and often only 
diligent research reveals the foreign origin. Buddhism won final 
victory by accepting the native Shinto, and potent as is the influence 
of Chinese thought, it has found no servile imitator. The samurai, 
the knights, are the true exponents of Japanese character. To 
these men patriotism is the chief virtue ; passionate love of country, 
complete devotion to feudal lord, summed up their ethics. During 
the ages of seclusion loyalty concentrated itself upon the clan ; but 
now that Japan is face to face with all the world, there is a broader 
patriotism. Now, as ever, the Japanese shows himself receptive of 
foreign ideas, but intolerant of all suggestion of foreign rule. When 
Commodore Perry sailed up Yedo Bay, his men standing behind 
loaded cannon, the Shogunate yielded to overwhelming force, and 
ventured to negotiate. Inch by inch the reluctant gates of Japan 
were crowded open. The samurai rebuked the Shogun for his 
weakness by driving him from power, and with hatred to foreigners 
as a rallying cry restored the government to the Mikado.* But 
once in power these barbarian-hating samurai became the willing 
disciples of the West, and initiated the reforms that have surprised 
the world. They were neither inconsistent nor insincere, for love of 
country was in all the ruling motive, and intelligent patriotism had 
replaced ignorant and bigoted loyalty. They saw Western civiliza- 
tion, and learned their lesson at a glance. Their conservative coun- 
trymen wondered at the transformation, but the same teaching 
sufficed for them also. The government, with full appreciation of 
the situation, sent the conservative leaders by the score, at govern- 
ment expense, to Europe and America. It was an object lesson that 
fully answered the expectations of its projectors. There is now no 
anti-foreign party in Japan, but still has Japan no thought of accept- 
ing a foreign yoke. She learns that she may rule. The foreigner is 
the employe, the counsellor ; he may teach, but must not command ; 
and he has greatest influence and truest power who accepts this fact. 
Japan will use the foreigner for a time, but will dispense with his 
services at her earliest convenience. 

The bearing of these facts on mission work is manifest. During 

* Some of the leaders, no doubt, adopted this cry merely as the most effective weapon 
for overthrowing the dual system of government, being convinced that Japan could hope 
for no true prosperity under the old regime. 



the first thirteen years little progress seemed made ; for a time, 
indeed, all work was forbidden, even Dr. Hepburn’s dispensary 
being closed. In time prejudice yielded somewhat : the dispensary 
was reopened, classes were taught, tentative translations of New 
Testament books were made, a few converts were gained. Then the 
Shogunate fell, the Mikado came to Tokio, and the West became 
the fashion. Thenceforth preaching and teaching were in public, 
schools were organized, in 1872 a church was formed, and soon work 
was carried on in all the great centres of the empire. The well- 
known story need not be dwelt upon. 

Prominent among the first converts were men of the samurai class. 
Educated in Chinese rationalism, the samurai were sceptical in 
religion. Naturally the materialistic side of Western civilization 
was attractive to most of them, and they enthusiastically entered 
upon the study of science and the mechanical arts. Yet the same 
motive led a few to Christianity ; they wished to serve their country, 
and felt that Western civilization could not be divorced from West- 
ern religion. They were impressed by the ethical elevation of 
Christ’s teaching, and thought it indispensable for the development 
of the new national life. Led by a patriotic impulse, men have 
proclaimed themselves Christians while still wholly ignorant of 
Christian truth ; and when Christ has been accepted as Lord indeed, 
and the spiritual side of His teaching has been apprehended, 
patriotism has remained a powerful secondary motive, impelling to 
evangelistic work. Our clergy and most active laymen are of this 
■class, and their views influence the whole Church. 

Manifestly, then, the Church in Japan must be independent, 
national ; it must be Japanese, and not the branch of some Ameri- 
can, British, or Russian Church. Permanent and large success can 
be looked for only as this fact is fully recognized. Mission churches 
composed of heimin — i.e . , of common people — may remain content 
in foreign dependence, for the heimin have been trained to submis- 
sion ; but the Church that is to contain within its fold some fair 
proportion of educated and influential men — that is, to command 
the respect of the nation, will be the Japanese in its organization.* 
Our missionaries early perceived this, and organized, not colonies of 
foreign churches, but the United Church of Christ in Japan. Our 
mission aim is the organization and training of this Church. With 

* The success of the mission of the A. B. C. F. M. is in part due to the acceptance 
of the situation by those devoted missionaries. On the other hand, vve find the Greek 
Church also largely successful among the Samurai. But the publication of its book, 
showing its government, first, as vested in its archbishop, a foreigner, and, second, as 
dependent on the Russian Church, led at once to a widespread and disastrous revolt. 


3 ■> 

its establishment our work will be complete, and foreign missions 
will be transformed into the home missions of the Japanese Church. 

Due allowance being made for differences in national character, 
this is the true aim of foreign missions everywhere. Never shall the 
truth be proclaimed to every creature until strong, independent, 
national churches undertake the work. The world will learn of 
Christ by home missions. The foreign missionary lays foundations, 
and ethers build thereon. He does not evangelize the nation, but 
organizes the native Church and trains its native ministry. As he is 
faithful the Church will take up the work he lays down and carry it 
to triumphant conclusion. The missionary impresses the truth 
upon the Church, and the- Church transmits it to the nation. The 
immediate evangelization of the world is often set forth as the aim 
of missionary endeavor, and calculations are made of the force in 
dollars, and men needed for the task. Such calculations fail to rep- 
resent adequately the resistance to be overcome, and make too small 
allowance for the weakness of our instruments. How great the 
task ! How slowly it proceeds at home ! Aided by all appliances, 
with Christianity in the very air, how great the multitude with no 
adequate comprehension of its meaning, how unceasing and tre- 
mendous are the efforts of the Church to proclaim Christ to the 
masses ! Increase all difficulties tenfold to appreciate the task on 
heathen soil — God, His name and attributes unknown ; the mind 
enslaved by false systems ; our terminology not understood, or, 
still worse, misunderstood ; heathenism in the air ; millions unac- 
customed to independent thought ! Think of the inertia and im- 
penetrability of mind, how prone to earth, how slow to comprehend 
spiritual truth ! And that truth is to be proclaimed in a foreign 
tongue, and by men slow to enter into native ways of thought and 
life, slow to adjust the message to the need. Foreign lands and 
climate, too, make serious inroads on the missionary force, and 
largely increase the expenditure of mission funds.* Moreover, the 

* The statistics of the Presbyterian Board, as printed in 1870 and 1S83, show that of 
360 men sent to the foreign field, not including missionaries to the Indians, and others 
working in America, 106 were connected with the Board for five years or less. 
That is not, perhaps, a very large percentage of failures, considering the difficulty of 
the service ; but still it is a factor that must be included when we estimate the 
force needed for the evangelization of the world. It need not be said that a very 
considerable part of five years from da^ of appointment is used in preparation. Of 
course by far the larger part of these io6 served less than five years, 70 being connected 
with the Board less than three years. I would not imply that these failures were in any 
way culpable ; most were for imperative reasons of health, so far as I can judge, and 
many (43) are marked as dying while still connected with the Board. Then, too, we 
should remember the very heavy expense attendant upon failure of health. One mission 
in Japan has expended over $90,000 in mission furloughs and other efforts to regain 



native Church can be properly trained in Christian truth only as its 
duty to its fellow-countrymen is insisted on. It is for this purpose 
that God has appeared to them, to make them ministers and wit- 
nesses of His truth to others. Their eternal election is for the 
manifestation of God’s glory. To rest in one’s own salvation is a 
baptized heathenism. A motive out of self, work for fellow-man, is 
the complement of holy love to God. Take from the American 
Church the motive furnished by home and foreign missions, and 
estimate, if you can, the loss to the Church itself. Our new-formed 
Church needs the same incitement to duty, and the motive is found 
when the evangelization of the empire is taught as its duty. Our 
whole mission policy must say, “ The conversion of Japan under 
God is the work of the Japanese; yours is the duty, yours the 
responsibility, yours will be the reward. We plant the Church, you 
nourish and propagate it.” Thus the Church is to be exalted, and 
not the mission or the missionary. The Church is not the appendix 
to a mission, and the surrender of authority is not to be too long 
delayed. Responsibility best prepares for responsibility. Our con- 
verts should be organized into a Church, with all the privileges and 
responsibilities of a Church. No other method can lead to self- 
reliance and true independence ; in Japan, at least, no other method 
is possible. 

The word heathen connotes false ideas : we think instinctively 
of undeveloped men, of children, of inferiors unfit to control them- 
selves. We call the lowest of our city mob heathen, and mentally 
regard the non-Christian world as composed of men similarly de- 
graded. The Anglo-Saxon becomes singularly provincial when he 
considers foreign lands, and his false theories too often find expres- 
sion in rank injustice. Observe the anti-Chinese legislation in the 
United States and the oppressive diplomacy of Great Britain in 
Japan. The “ heathen” are men like ourselves, often highly edu- 
cated, and of fine powers of body and mind. We doubtless just 
now excel them, as their ancestors excelled our forefathers, but our 
boasted progress gives no claim to rule. Especially the missionary 
dare not wield unusual authority. He teaches the Fatherhood of 
God and the brotherhood of man, and the convert soon learns the 
lesson. Even with dependent classes of society Christianity de- 
velops true manhood and self-respect, and this very independence is 
the sign of success. Japan at every step of progress has been 
officiously told that she could not stand alone. But resolutely she 

health. See the paper of Dr. W. Taylor, Proceedings of the Osaca Conference, p. 386. 
Of course my calculations make no allowance for time spent in efforts to regain health. 




has put away her foreign props, and now she operates her postal 
system, builds her railways, navigates her men-of-war, conducts her 
own schools and colleges. Why should mission work be an excep- 
tion to all the rest ? It cannot be an exception, and as the Church 
gains in influence foreign direction will cease. We must recognize 
facts, and act on them. And in every land when the independent, 
educated classes of society are reached, the same lesson will be 
learned. The commission of the Church is to preach the truth to 
every creature, but the distinctive aim of foreign missions is the 
organization of the native Church. 

With this understanding of the missionary aim, the wisdom of 
union among missionaries of churches of kindred creed and polity is 
plain. Why establish four Reformed churches in Japan? How 
should the weaklings be designated ? Should we form an Ameri- 
can (North) Japanese Presbyterian Church, a Scotch (United) 
Japanese Presbyterian Church, an American (Dutch) Japanese 
Reformed Church, and an American (German) Japanese Reformed 
Church? If mission work be regarded wholly as a department of 
work of American and Scotch churches, such a scheme is possible in 
spite of its puerility ; but if we consider the effect upon the native 
Church, the absurdity is too apparent for argument. Surely, thus 
the evangelization of the empire by native churches were the wildest 

In 1877 the missions, cordially supported by the Boards, organized 
the United Church of Christ. The missions of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States, of the Reformed Church in America, 
and of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, remain distinct, 
but the converts- form one native organization. During these seven 
years the benefits of united work have been very apparent. We are 
nearer the realization of our aim : the native Church has been 
strengthened, and missionary work has gained in efficiency and 
economy. It would no doubt have been possible to bring our divi- 
sions to Japan, for heathenism is essentially disunited and suspicious, 
with party spirit rife. Sectarianism is by no means confined to 
Christian lands. But union commands respect, and there is distinct 
gain in moral power. The converts appreciate better the meaning 
of Christian fellowship, and admire the surrender of mission and 
party spirit for the advancement of the Church. Then, too, they 
feel themselves members of a body of considerable size and influ- 
ence, and gain confidence thereby. Weak congregations formed by 
separate missions may unite and form strong, self-supporting 
churches. Vacant churches have a larger range of choice in calling 
pastors and ministers, more freedom in choosing fields of labor. In 



short, Church life grows stronger and the Church organization has 
more reality. This is a gain of the greatest moment, since an 
independent, working, missionary church is our immediate aim. 
The organization will be more and more in native hands, and must 
be sufficient for its purpose. Presbyterianism is admirably adapted 
to mission ground. We believe in the immediate and full organiza- 
tion of the Church courts. When a few converts have been made, 
the church is formed at once, with elders and deacons, and it assumes 
all the current expenses. The missionary may for the time act as 
stated supply, but all recognize the relation as temporary. Soon a 
native pastor is called, and the missionary is thenceforth only friend 
and counsellor. The church possesses full powers, and the mission- 
ary can interfere no more than in a church at home. His advice 
may be asked or not, it may be followed or rejected, and often at 
first, no doubt, the church manifests somewhat undue reluctance to 
listen to his counsel. But as time goes by he has small reason to 
complain that the benefit of his wider experience is not sought. Of 
the 36 churches of the United Church, 15 have ordained pastors, 
and the others wait only for the ordination of duly-qualified men. 
Only one missionary is acting as stated supply. The missionaries 
are engaged in educational and strictly evangelistic work, leaving 
the churches to the native ministry. On the floor of Presbytery all 
meet on common ground. The missionary is a member on condi- 
tion that he submit to the discipline of the native church, and thus 
claims no especial privilege or exemption. Presbytery is an actual 
force and authority, with all ecclesiastical power in its hands. On 
the whole, the result is satisfactory. We see constant progress in 
order, efficiency, and self-restraint. The Japanese members far out- 
vote the foreign, but the various functions are at least as well per- 
formed as when foreign influence predominated. Synod is the com- 
pletion of the system, and the higher body, like the lower, shows 
that our polity is in nowise too advanced for the Japanese. 

But financial independence is essential to the true responsibility of 
the Church. All the Church machinery might be set in motion, and 
yet be wholly controlled by the missionaries in charge. The mis- 
sionary would be nominally a co-presbyter, but really a bishop. 
Indeed, a writer in the Catholic Presbyterian advocated the charms 
of the missionary calling on the pronounced grounds that it wields 
more than episcopal powers. Nothing could be wider of the mark. 
No missionary should be able, by the use of money, to control the 
action of the Church. And so true independence leads to self-support. 
From various view-points self-support is the great problem in mis- 
sion policy, for on its solution depends in great degree the future of 



the work. An ever-increasing body of men insist that the native 
church must from its foundation rely upon itself. The foreign 
church sends the missionary only ; he is to preach the truth, and 
bear Christ to those who know Him not. As converts are gained 
all expense incident to the complete organization of the church, 
together with the sending forth of native evangelists and the found- 
ing of schools, shall be borne by the native church. These men 
constitute the radical left of the missionary body, and with the zeal 
of full conviction demand the acceptance of these views as the 
normal method of mission work. They already can point to success 
in such diverse and distant fields that no plea of “ extraordinary 
circumstances” can longer avail, and this much at least may be said, 
the time comes when missionaries will have to give valid reasons for 
adopting other plans of work. By the method of radical self-support 
the great principles of the Gospel are most clearly taught ; love, 
faith, and consecration gain fulness of meaning ; the essential is the 
more easily separated from the accidental ; method and organization 
are more simple and of less expense ; schools and philanthropic insti- 
tutions will be of natural growth ; and there will be no temptation to 
put forth the latest products of our civilization as of vital moment to 
Christianity itself. The danger of mercenary motives in the con- 
verts will be escaped. These radicals point to the danger of excess 
in the other method, and declare that the cost increases with suc- 
cess, and thus that success itself puts the limit to missionary effort. 
Ministers, evangelists, helpers, theological students, literary assist- 
ants, teachers, colporteurs, Bible women, boys and girls supported 
in schools — the array of natives employed by mission funds grows 
from year to year.* These employes, with those dependent on 
them, in some missions form no small proportion of the total num- 
ber of native converts, giving rise to the suspicion that foreign funds 

* It is very difficult, indeed impossible, to get satisfactory figures on this subject. 
Many missionaries are themselves unaware how large a part money bears in the sup- 
port of the converts. Some of our Boards publish almost nothing that touches on the 
matter, there being probably no great desire on the part cf the Church to know such 
dry facts. The Board of the Presbyterian Church prints certain figures that are sugges- 
tive. For example, in the report for the year 1884 the total number of converts in India 
is given as 893, and the number of ordained natives is 18, of licensed men is 2, and of 
lay evangelists is 170— that is, there is one native employed as preacher to every 5 
converts. The total cost of the mission for the year was 8126,621.35 ; and the net 
result of the year’s work, so far as the statistics show, is a loss of 129 in the number of 
converts. It would be interesting to know how many of the 702 converts not reported 
as employed are yet directly or indirectly dependent on mission funds ; how many are 
of the families of helpers ; how many are supported as students and in other capacities. 
Of course, on this system any approach to vigorous self-help is a remote possibility of 
the future. 



and not grace are the foundation of mission prosperity. On such 
a basis no lasting growth can be hoped for, and no independent 
native church be established. In Japan we would change all this, 
and yet with work first established on the other plan changes are 
slow. Still we see substantial progress. Self-support has the assent 
of the Church, it is popular, and the Christians feel that it is the 
only true and normal method. Nine of the pastors are wholly paid 
by their churches, and all churches pay their current expenses and 
part of the salaries of their pastors or supplies. The Japanese give 
more largely toward the support of churches than the missionary 
societies, and already they are undertaking with energy the wider 
evangelization of Japan. Several home mission societies have been 
formed in connection with local churches, and we look forward to 
the formation of a synodical board of missions in November. 1885. 
The total contributions of the Church last year, not including special 
gifts for educational purposes, were $6450. The self-support and 
self-propagation of the Church are so essential to its true independent 
development that all our methods are designed with these ends in 
view, and our success during the few years past shows that our 
hopes are not without foundation.* 

Our plan in detail is as follows : 1. Churches shall be expected to pay all current 
expenses from the start, excepting the salaries of pastors and supplies. 

2. Churches without pastors or stated supplies shall be expected to pay all travelling 
and other expenses of evangelists visiting them, the committee supplying the salaries 
only of the evangelists. 

3. Churches engaging pastors or stated supplies may receive from the committee no 
greater proportion of the salary than is provided for in the following schedule : Churches 
of less than twenty-five communicants pay one fourth and the committee three fourths 
of the salary ; churches of from twenty-five to fifty communicants pay one third and the 
committee two thirds ; churches of from fifty to seventy-five communicants pay one half 
and the committee one half ; churches of from seventy-five to one hundred members pay 
two thirds and the committee one third of the salary ; churches of one hundred members 
are to receive no aid from the committee. 

6. Money will be given toward church erection only on condition that the Church 
pays such proportion of the whole cost that the property may be rightfully considered 
its own. 

7. Evangelists working in regions where no church is established should, as a rule, 
tell their hearers from the beginning of their labors that if they desire regular instruction 
they will be expected to pay the expenses of those going to them. Of course our com- 
mittee on evangelistic work has no legislative power, and the above are merely the con- 
ditions on which we think it wise to grant aid. We find the plan works well, and that 
most of the churches easily fulfil these conditions, some doing much more. 

We proposed, in 1883, the formation of a Board with equal numbers of Japanese and 
foreign members, for the carrying on of all the evangelistic work, asking the native 
church to assume say a fourth of the expense. But the Japanese thought the time not 
yet come for such a movement, desiring first to carry out their plans for self-support. 
In all probability, however, some such plan will be adopted at the next meeting of 
Synod in 1885. Of course we are still far enough from genuine self-support. So far 



Japan is often called the most hopeful of missionary fields. There 
is truth in the remark. The number of converts gained has been 
elsewhere exceeded, but seldom or never have the elements neces- 
sary to the formation of an independent, efficient Church been so 
rapidly brought together. Glance for a moment at the statistics of 
the United Church, that by their aid we may forecast the future. In 
1872 the first church was formed, with 9 members ; in 1877 Chiu 
Kuwai Presbytery was formed, with 9 congregations and 600 mem- 
bers ; in 1884 Dai Kuwai Synod had under its care 3 presbyteries, 
36 congregations, 23 ordained ministers, 3003 members. The con- 
tributions for the year were $6440.* * Sunday-schools and prayer- 
meetings are everywhere maintained, and there has been during the 
past year a distinct advance in spiritual life and power. Our min- 
istry is educated, energetic, and devoted, commanding the respect of 
the best part of the people ; and the influence of the Church extends 
far beyond the nominal membership. Can we argue from the past 
and present, can we expect the next sixteen years to be proportion- 
ately as fruitful as the past seven ? Our forces are larger, we have 
more ministers and better trained, with wider experience ; our 
churches show a deeper Christian experience ; we have the beginning 
of a Christian literature, and our schools are better organized. The 
prejudice against Christianity has disappeared, and it is almost pop- 
ular. Leading writers advocate its claims in the secular press, and 
the government assures us that we have its sympathy. Christianity 
is everywhere admitted to be “ the best religion,” and necessary to 
the nation. Everywhere Japan is open to the truth, and sometimes 
it would seem that our danger is the too speedy conversion to a 
nominal Christianity. With such indications that the full time has 
come, are we too sanguine as we expect the years to come to show 
an advance as rapid as the time gone past ? Should God thus bless 
us, there would be in the year 1900 a Reformed Church in Japan 
with more than 200 congregations, 50,000 members, 200 ministers, 
and annual contributions of more than $100,000. Dai Kuwai 
would exceed in size every synod in the Presbyterian Church in the 

as I can estimate, about one convert in every fourteen is in mission pay, the Christian 
girls supported in schools and all other supported students being included. I may add 
that a strong pressure is sometimes brought to bear on missionaries, especially on the 
ladies from home, because individuals and “ bands” are so eager to support students 
and helpers, forgetting, of course, the danger that may thereby be threatened to the 
purity of the Church. 

* The total of contributions, it should be explained, is given in Japanese paper yen, 
worth during the last year, perhaps, five per cent less than the silver dollar. The total 
would be increased, were gifts to education, etc., included. The sum noted was strictly 
or church purposes. 



United States, excepting New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. We 
might divide Dai Kuwai into four bodies equal to the four synods of 
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and- Missouri. A few years in the 
twentieth century would see the United Church larger than the 
Reformed Church in America, that contributes so largely to its 
establishment. And if in spite of our greatly increased opportuni- 
ties progress be slower, ratios of increase rarely holding good as 
figures grow large, still would the Church be too large to be held in 
leading strings.* All this bears with much force on the question of 
mission policy. Such a church would acknowledge no foreign 
dependence, but would be Japanese, self-supporting, and self-propa- 
gating. Foreign money for special objects may still be used, foreign 
professors in Christian schools may still be needed, missionaries 
grown old in service will still find work to do, but the United Church 
will lead the enterprise, and the home missionary will supplant the 
foreigner. They must increase, but we must decrease. Our time is 
now ; as we are faithful, the United Church, knowing its duty, well 
equipped, intelligently and enthusiastically led, is, by God’s grace, 
sure of victory. The influence of this Church will be great in other 
lands. Missions will be proved no forlorn hope when a Japanese 
Church takes its place in the Alliance of the Reformed churches, a 
church in size, intelligence, spiritual fervor, aggressive zeal, and 
orthodoxy worthy of that illustrious sisterhood. With such a seal 
of God’s blessing on union work, may the churches take courage 
and make the alliance an efficient instrument for bringing other 
lands to Christ ! 

What should be the missionary’s position toward such a Church ? 
Most naturally he would become a full member, although thus he 
severs his connection with the home Church. Certain of our mis- 
sionaries hold this position, and the arguments against such a course 
are sentimental rather than practical. Objections are felt by some, 
however, to this complete identification with the native Church, and 
it is argued that the missionary may hold simply corresponding 
membership. But thus he holds himself aloof from the Church he 
has helped to form, and denies in practice the parity of the ministry. 
He may by mission funds largely control the Church’s action, while 
wholly escaping its discipline through ecclesiastical extra-territorial- 
ity. An independent church will not long endure such a state of 
things. The United Church admits, by special provision, mission- 
aries to its privileges. The missionary retains his membership in 

* By the year 1900 we may look for a Congregational Church of, at least, equal size, 
and also large Methodist and Episcopal churches. 



presbytery at home, but accepts also the discipline of the United 
Church in so far as to admit its right to exclude him, on due process, 
from its pulpits and the exercise of all ministerial functions under its 
authority.* The position is “ anomalous,” it is said. So on every 
plan is the missionary’s position anomalous when a vigorous church 
life has begun. Most anomalous of all would it be to tie the Church 
in Japan to some foreign Assembly. The plan, it is urged, involves 
danger ; but not so many dangers are involved as on the other plan. 
Could General Assembly safely reverse the decisions of the Japanese 
Presbytery and Synod, could it, in fact, find time and opportunity 
for just decision ? Eight thousand miles of land and sea, foreign 
language, with foreign ways of thought and life, present obstacles 
too serious to be easily overcome. A supreme court so far removed 
is surely anomalous. If the control is to be a fact, Japanese history 
and character forbid us to think that foreign rule would long survive ; 
and if control is to be but nominal, we can best dispense with such 
fictitious relationship. Quite apart from native susceptibilities the 
difficulties of the “ regular plan” find illustration in cases still 
undecided, and the stoutest opposers of our plan find the other way 
as little to their liking. The main thing, after all, is the substantial 
parity of the ministry, and this the constitution of the United 
Church measurably preserves. Future possibilities may be left to 
care for themselves, practical politics looking to the present emer- 
gency. This much is clear : the missionary who shall reject the 
authority of the United Church will deliberately cut himself off from 
opportunity and influence, and the tendency in Japan at least will 
be, doubtless, toward full membership in the native Church. 

We would avoid the possibility of conflict between presbytery and 
mission, between the Church and the foreigner. As stated above, 
we would transfer all evangelistic work to the Church, and in the 
mean time Japanese ministers attend the meetings of our evangelistic 
committee and take part in all of our discussions ; while the Japanese 
professors have part, of course, in the faculty meetings of the union 
institutions. We will employ no evangelist without license from 
presbytery, and will support no student for the ministry who has not 
been received under its care. The native ministry is thus associated 
with us in all departments of work, and presbytery has full responsi- 

No less striking are the advantages in economy and effectiveness 
to the missions themselves. As we consider the greatness of the 

* Observe the difficulties a year or two back in the Armenian churches of the 
A. B. C. F. M., the natives alleging, as one ground of offence, that the missionaries 
were not members of the local associations, and thus not subject to their control. 



work and the slowness of the Church to provide adequate forces, we 
would place every man to best advantage. The work demands most 
exclusive and devoted care, and excellence in any department is 
difficult of attainment. But missions are inadequately manned, and 
men are of all trades and masters of none. Before they have 
sufficiently learned the language they become teachers, preachers, 
translators, builders of schools and houses. Sometimes single men 
are sent to man mission stations, and combine in themselves func- 
tions divided among a score of men at home, and thus nothing is 
done well or thoroughly. In addition, the divisions of Protestantism 
keep missionaries in the same city apart, so that little mutual aid 
can be given, the self-same work being done over and over by mis- 
sionaries of different creeds. Possibly the separation is caused by 
no real distinction in creed or polity, and Methodist stands apart 
from Methodist, and Reformed from Presbyterian. We piously 
expect the Holy Spirit to make good our lack of common-sense and 
Christian unity, as if He were the Author of confusion and discord. 
In Tokio the illustration of the waste of disunion finds peculiarly 
strong illustration. The word went home of the great opening in 
Japan, and straightway each division and subdivision of the Church 
sent out its tiny detachment. Twelve different missions are work- 
ing in this city, and only two have fairly adequate forces, the others 
representing various stages of inefficiency. We have six schools for 
young men and five theological seminaries. Not one school has 
really sufficient force of teachers, and two schools could easily do 
the work performed by all. No single mission has force enough to 
carry on a high-class school and maintain its other work, and yet 
plans for union in such work have been vetoed by Boards at home, 
as if churches of like creed could not teach a b c in harmony while 
divided at home by the great lakes and the St. Lawrence. Instead 
of world-embracing plans, each subdivision of Protestantism looks to 
its little section of the field, and encourages the missionary spirit by 
exhibiting the trophies of its especial endeavor, as if special tables 
of statistics of the work of our especial missionary were a higher 
incitement to missionary effort than the upbuilding of strong, united, 
independent churches. 

Are all of our divisions — Reformed and Presbyterian, Methodist 
Episcopal and Protestant, Baptist, close and open communion, 
Episcopalian, Reformed and regular, with all the endless varieties, 
Canadian, American, North, South, Scotch, English, German — to 
be repeated and perpetuated ? “ Is an army less effective because 

composed of different regiments and brigades ?” Yes, less effective 
indeed when each division follows its own plans, with no common 

4 ? 


leader and often cross-purposes. In Tokio we have seventeen 
missionaries representing four branches of the Reformed Church.* 
As yet we are the only missions that have practically tested the 
problem of union, and we have our due reward. Our United 
Church is by far the largest, most liberal, and most influential 
in the city. We can specialize our work, and look well after 
details. New-comers have time to learn the language thoroughly ; 
teachers can devote themselves to teaching, and preachers to preach- 
ing ; missionaries are always in readiness for special calls, and indi- 
vidual aptitudes may be consulted. We have a Union Theological 
School sufficient for our present needs. It has three foreign profes- 
sors and one Japanese assistant professor. There are thirty students 
in attendance, and the faculty have made considerable contributions 
to the Christian literature of the country. We have a Union 
College, with four foreign professors and four Japanese assistant 
professors. The curriculum covers six years, and a hundred and 
sixty students are in attendance. We have a union evangelistic 
committee, where plans are made in common, and the best disposi- 
tion of our united force is sought, while no mission is coerced, as 
each has a veto on all proposals concerning its missionaries and work 
under its distinctive care. It is not too much to claim that thus 
united we form the best organized, most effective, and most influen- 
tial missionary body in Northern Japan. Our union causes no 
extraordinary friction or discussion. In our council, it is true, 
questions are discussed with utmost earnestness and freedom, but 
divisions do not follow mission lines. Differences of opinion are no 
more marked than in the missions, and in the larger body it is the 
easier to eliminate the personal equation. Practical difficulties of 
moment are not encountered, and after seven years all of our 
tendencies are toward still closer union. Our difficulties are those 
incidental to all extended work, and are in no way due to associated 
action. The protests of timid conservatism and of narrow partisan- 
ship may be disregarded. Unless the signs of the times wholly 
mislead, the tendency of opinion in the Church in America and Scot- 
land is in favor of union, and we hail that strengthening sentiment 
as tlie sign of more efficient and extended missionary work in the 
days to come. 

Foreign missionary work in Japan is by no means done, and 
because we think we see the end we should therefore redouble 
effort. Much remains to be done in these coming sixteen years. 

* The mission of the Reformed (German) Church is waiting only for official permis- 
sion to enter our council, unofficial assurances of approval having already been received. 



We need great wisdom and great faith. I. Most of all, we need 
God’s Spirit in the Church. With success comes danger, and in the 
days to come many will turn to Christianity because it is the fashion ; 
they will regard the truth as the ally of Western power and thought. 
Then, too, as the Church grows in power our ministry may lose 
humility and evangelical zeal. 

2. Present mission policy must be perfected. No present gain 
must turn us back. More and more must the Church control. We 
believe in the Holy Ghost, and not in the Anglo-Saxon. By respon- 
sibility must the Church be prepared for the day when it shall stand 
alone. Self-support and home missions must still be the constant aim. 

3. Special care must be exercised in the training of the ministry. 
Since the Church is so soon to stand alone, its leaders must be men 
of learning, faith, and prayer. The choicest young men now press 
into the service of the Church, and they must have an education 
adequate to the need. 

4. The Union College should be strengthened and thoroughly 
equipped, that it may answer the desires of its faculty and the 
necessities of the Church. 

5. A Christian literature must be created in all its departments. 

6. Woman’s work, in training women and the young, and thus 
broadening and deepening Christian life, should be maintained and 
carried forward on well-considered lines. 

7. A few missionaries of genuine ability in public speech can find 
wide fields of usefulness as evangelists. They can supplement the 
work of native pastors and preach the truth throughout the empire. 
The churches in America and Great Britain should supply our needs. 
Such varied work needs force — intellectual, moral, and spiritual force. 
We need men adequate for this work. The missionary will hence- 
forth yield no exceptional authority ; he will be a man among men ; 
he will not long be listened to because he is a foreigner ; but in the 
pulpit, in presbytery and synod, in the school-room, mental and 
spiritual superiority alone will command assent. 

Why should not missions in Japan command the choicest young 
men ? What other work has higher claims ? Where else can a man, 
ambitious of much service, find an influence wider, more immediate, 
or more lasting? Often, no doubt, the field is described in mistaken 
terms. The missionary comes to no “parish of a million.” His 
parish embraces those whom he can reach. He preaches to crowds, 
perhaps, that come and go, but few understand the words of life. 
He speaks in dingy chapels and in upper rooms ; he teaches a Bible- 
class ; he talks by the day to single men. A million ! His parish 
seems an hundred at the most. How disappointing, perchance, his 



college and theological school, so small, so narrow, and unlike his 
thought ! He might easily have done greater work at home. Not 
so ; the broader view is truer to the fact. See, that dingy chapel, 
that upper room, that little class, bear in themselves the temple that 
is yet to be. The missionary builds himself into the Church ; he is 
the living epistle ; he sets forth Christ ; all he is and knows, all his 
faith and love and zeal, are builded on the one foundation. The 
Church will bear his impress through all its history ; and as he is 
faithful that impress will be the reflection of the Master’s glory ; as 
he is faithful the fire from heaven will fill the holy place. No man 
can wholly correct his errors, no later builder can wholly undo his 
work. In every branch of work the time is his. Not yet are walls 
rigid and organization complete, but what he does shall stand 
forever. He bears to this infant church the fulness of the Church’s 
ripest thought. His books shall lie on every pastor’s table, and his 
thought shall enter into the very structure of the temple. And in 
Japan the walls go up apace, the missionary sees the fulfilment of 
his hopes, soon the foundation shall be broadly laid and the super- 
structure begin to rise. 

Centuries ago Jesuits came to Japan. Accomplished men, ani- 
mated by perfervicl zeal, the people heard them gladly. Whole 
provinces were Catholic, but the priests presumed upon success. 
The Japanese would accept no foreign rule, and drove out the 
priests and massacred the converts. Heroically the martyrs went to 
death, and the devoted remnant held to Mary for two hundred 
years, till happier times brought once more teachers of their faith. 
Are the Japanese, then, superficial and easy to be changed ? We 
give the Japanese an open Bible, free thought, and education. We 
ask no dominion, but form an independent church. We teach not 
Mary, but our Lord. That Church will stand. No wind of doctrine 
shall move it from its base, no fiercest storm shall bear it from its 
Lord. It will be completed by other hands, and will be Christ’s 
witness to the lands beyond. The missionary wonders that he is 
called to such a work ; to him, the least of all saints, is this grace 
given that he should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable 
riches of Christ. He, too, fills up that which is behind of the 
sufferings of Christ. He, too, is a laborer together with God, and 
when his work is done the Church of Christ shall stand, the fulness 
of Him that filleth all in all. George William Knox. 

Union Theological School, Tokiyo, Japan. 




P ARTS of the Bible were translated into Anglo-Saxon by Aid- 
helm in the seventh century, by Bede in the eighth century, by 
Alfred in the ninth century, and by others. English versions of the 
Psalms and of some other books of Scripture were made in the 
thirteenth century and in the beginning of the fourteenth, but 
the history of the English Bible properly begins with the great 
reformer Wycliffe. This remarkable man translated the whole of 
the New Testament into English, and his coadjutor, Nicholas de 
Hereford, translated the greater part of the Old Testament. 
Wycliffe was probably unacquainted with the Hebrew and the Greek 
languages, and his translation was made from the Vulgate. It was 
made for the benefit of the “ manie lewid men that gladly would 
kon the Gospelle if it were draghen into the English tung. ” 
Though the art of printing was unknown, many copies of the Bible 
were put into circulation, and the cause of religion, we cannot 
doubt, was much promoted. When a bill to suppress the obnoxious 
book was brought into the House of Lords the Duke of Lancaster 
declared that “ we must not be the dregs of all ; seeing other nations 
have the law of God, which is the law of our faith, written in their 
own language.” 

The translation of Wycliffe is characterized by the extreme literal- 
ness with which it renders the Vulgate, and by the homeliness of a 
style which was specially adapted to the common people. The fact 
that Wycliffe translated a translation, not to speak of the rudimen- 
tary condition of the English language in the fourteenth century, 
made it impossible that his version should have any appreciable in- 
fluence on later translations. It assisted, doubtless, in preparing 
the way for the Reformation of the sixteenth century, but as a 
translation it stands by itself. 

In the translation of Tyndale we have the first of a succession of 
translations and revisions, culminating in the Revision of 1881-85. 



His talents, his piety, his labors, and his sufferings make Tyndale 
the hero of the English Reformation ; and by no instrumentality 
was that movement so much promoted as by his Bible. Tyndale 
went to Oxford in 1500, and came under the influence of the new 
Greek scholarship, and it is not improbable that he received instruc- 
tion from Erasmus, at Cambridge, some years later. The revival of 
Hebrew learning in England, as on the Continent, was proceeding 
pari passu with that of Greek ; but whether Tyndale had any 
knowledge of Hebrew before he left England, in 1524, we are unable 
to say. He may have acquired this language from Jews in Cologne, 
Hamburg, or other cities of Europe which he visited. That he at- 
tained to a fair acquaintance with Hebrew is certain. His version, 
in both Testaments, is made from the originals, and Hallam is 
entirely in error in saying that Tyndale’s Version “ was avowedly 
taken from Luther’s.” He was perhaps misled by Sir Thomas 
More’s rash accusation that “ Tyndale corrupted Scripture after the 
counsel of Luther.” 

In 1525 the entire New Testament was printed at Cologne and at 
Worms ; and neither Acts of Parliament against a “ false transla- 
tion” nor the furious opposition of Tonstal and Sir Thomas More 
could prevent its wide circulation in England. Of the Old Testa- 
ment the translation of the Pentateuch and Job was published in the 
Reformer’s lifetime, and he left a MS. translation of the books from 
Joshua to Chronicles. Tyndale’s translation was based on true 
principles, and has received the highest encomiums from scholars of 
all classes. In many important renderings he is to be preferred to 
King James’s Version. 

Coverdalc s translation was made from the Latin and the German, 
and, whatever its merits or demerits, cannot claim a place in the 
line of succession. It is singular that a translation favored by king 
and bishops should defer to Luther’s Bible far more than Tyndale 
does, though king and bishops procured the death of Tyndale as a 
follower of Luther. 

Matthew's Bible (so-called) is a reprint of Tyndale’s, with the 
remaining books done, probably, by John Rogers (martyr) and 
Coverdale. The king gave his sanction to this translation, though 
substantially identical with Tyndale’s, which was publicly burned. 
Taverner was engaged to correct Matthew’s Version, and he left out 
many things which had offended the ecclesiastical authorities. 

Cranmer s Great Bible is a revision of Tyndale’s or Matthew’s, 
executed by bishops and other learned persons, with a preface by 
the archbishop himself. It has considerable pretensions in Hebrew 
scholarship, and pedantically names the books of the Pentateuch 


according to the Hebrew. The renderings alternately favor Tyndale 
and his opponents. 

The Geneva Bible was executed by English Reformers who had 
fled from the persecutions of Mary. The New Testament, trans- 
lated by Whittingham, w'as printed at Geneva in 1557 ; the whole 
Bible was printed in 1560. This is the first English Bible which has 
the verse-divisions of Stephens. For sixty years it was the most 
popular of all the versions, and its influence upon the Authorized 
Version was very great. 

Eight bishops, with some deans and professors, brought out, 
under the supervision of Archbishop Parker, the Bishops Bible. 
This translation or revision, though it secured ecclesiastical sanction, 
and was ordered to be supplied in churches, had no great success 
either with scholars or the people ; but its historical position, as the 
version submitted by King James for revision, will always invest it 
with a measure of interest, notwithstanding the undeniable fact that 
the Authorized Version makes greater use of the Geneva Bible than 
of the Bishops’ Bible. 

That another version should be demanded was inevitable. The 
Puritan party, especially, were dissatisfied with the Bible sanctioned 
by the Church, and Dr. Reynolds urged their objections to it at the 
famous Hampton Court Conference, held in the year after King 
James’s accession. The king, desiring perhaps to bring glory to his 
reign, gave orders for a new translation, and fifty-four eminent 
scholars were appointed to this important task. The forty-seven 
who actually met were divided into six companies, and certain por- 
tions of the Scriptures were assigned to each company. Among the 
fifteen rules prescribed to the translators by royal authority are 
these two : “ The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly 
called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the 
original will permit. ” “These translations to be used when they 
agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible — viz., Tindale’s, 
Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitechurch’s, Geneva.’’ Each book was 
translated by the several members of the company to which it was 
assigned, and after careful comparison of results the words which 
should “ stand ’’ were agreed on. But the several companies also 
exchanged work, and thus each book passed the scrutiny of all the 
translators. The entire translation was revised by twelve men — two 
from each of the 'six companies. In places of special obscurity the 
opinion of “ any learned in the land ’’ might be sought. 

A translation or revision thus made could scarcely fail to have 
great merit, and eminent men have vied with one another in their 
eulogies of the English Bible. The greatest masters of composition, 

4 S 


as Addison and Swift, have praised its unrivalled English, and the 
most competent biblical scholars have extolled its merits as a trans- 
lation. “ Liter omnes cininct," says Walton. It is the best of all 
translations in giving the sense of the original,” says Selden. Dr. 
Samuel Davidson says that “ it far surpasses every other English ver- 
sion of the entire Bible in the characteristic qualities of simplicity, 
energy, and unity of style, as also in fidelity to the original.” Dr. 
Chambers regards it as “ better than any of the ancient versions, 
and as surpassed by only one of the modern, the Staaten-Bybel of 
Holland.” After its history of two hundred and seventy years we 
can only be amused at the arrogant conceit of the Hebraist, Brough- 
ton, who ‘‘ would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than im- 
pose such aversion on the poor churches of England.” 

Though this translation of high and varied excellence has had no 
rival since the Restoration in 1660, able and unprejudiced scholars 
have often called attention to its defects, and shown the necessity 
of still farther revision. Even before King James’s Version came 
into universal use Lightfoot argued before the House of Commons 
for a ‘‘ revision and survey of the translation of the Bible. ” Dr. 
Thomas Brett (1760) dwells upon the importance of consulting the 
ancient versions with a view to a more accurate text than that of the 
Massoretic Hebrew, and shows also that the many obsolete words in 
the Authorized Version should be removed. About the same time 
Lowth began to recommend revision. It may be doubted, how- 
ever, whether the boldness of this accomplished scholar in his own 
emendations of the text of Isaiah did not tend rather to deepen 
apprehension as to the result of any revision which should proceed 
upon the basis of textual reconstruction. The general fear of inno- 
vation and change consequent on the French Revolution operated 
for many years against those who favored the improvement of the 
Authorized Version, and not till a period less than thirty years ago 
was the necessity of revision again earnestly enforced by men who, 
at once by their scholarship and their conservative tendencies, com- 
manded general confidence. We cannot here refer in detail to the 
writings of Ellicott, Trench, and others on both sides of the Atlantic, 
who did much to ripen opinion in favor of revision — indeed, to 
make revision inevitable. Ellicott forcibly expresses what nearly all 
earnest men who knew the facts were thinking, when, in his preface 
to his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, he says : “ It is in vain 
to cheat our own soul with the thought that these errors (in the 
Authorized Version) are either insignificant or imaginary. There 
are errors, there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions, there arc 
obscurities, . . . and that man who, after being in any degree satis- 


tied of this, permits himself to lean to the counsels of a timid or 
popular obstructiveness, or who, intellectually unable to test the 
truth of these allegations, nevertheless permits himself to denounce 
or deny them, will have to sustain the tremendous charge of having 
dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word of God.” When we 
think of the great mass of material for revision which had now 
accumulated, and which the Church was bound to use to the greatest 
advantage, this language cannot be regarded as too strong. A far 
better text — of the New Testament at least — than the translators 
of the Authorized Version possessed was now available ; great 
advances had been made in the knowledge both of Hebrew and of 
New Testament Greek ; the geography and topography of Bible- 
lands, their history and antiquities, their manners and customs, had 
been elucidated ; in the application of these materials much had 
been accomplished by commentators and individual translators ; on 
the part of the Christian public, as well as of biblical scholars, there 
was a prevalent desire that some worthy attempt should be made to 
present the English Bible in a form corresponding to the advanced 
scholarship of the period ; and other nations had similar work on 
hand, or had recently performed it. A revision of our venerated 
English Bible could not long be deferred. 

The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury took action, 
wisely associating the other British churches with the Church of 
England ; and the assistance of America was sought in labor which 
equally concerned all English-speaking people— labor in which the 
scholarship of the New World, as well as the millions of its readers 
of the English Bible, entitled it to bear its part. 

Whatever shall be the fate of the Revised Version, it is certain 
that no more important and honorable international work has ever 
been accomplished. Among the fresh bonds which are uniting Eng- 
land and America there is none more interesting and sacred than 
their hearty co-operation in the revision just completed. After fif- 
teen years of labor the Revised Version is given to the world, and 
criticism is called to discharge its duty. Criticism is inevitable, and 
no one can properly object to every part and feature of the work 
being subjected to the most careful scrutiny. It should not be 
necessary in this connection to vindicate the rights of criticism, and 
the eminent men who labored so zealously in the great task now 
finished will be the last, we are sure, to deprecate criticism which 
has no sinister aim, and which is free from prejudice and malignity. 

The fate of the revision, it has frequently been said, does not 
depend upon the opinions of the critics, but will finally be deter- 
mined by the sure instincts of the great body of Christian readers. 




In a sense this is true ; but it is equally true that no translation 
which competent scholars generally condemn can secure a favorable 
verdict from the people, and that the consensus of criticism as to the 
great features of the revision will be of the utmost importance in 
directing the opinion of the mass of intelligent readers. We desire 
to say this as distinctly as possible, because in some quarters there 
appears to be a disposition to impress upon the critics a sense of 
their own impotence, and to make them feel that the balance is held 
in other hands ; whereas nothing is surer than that the judgment of 
the great body of intelligent Christian readers will eventually be in 
accord with the results of true criticism. To speak otherwise were 
no compliment to the intelligence of the Christian people. There are 
many things essential to a true estimate of the version which they 
must necessarily receive on the authority of scholars. Questions as 
to the character of the text translated, the grammar and lexicography 
involved, etc., they cannot determine ; and yet no version can at the 
present day meet general approval, should it fail in these essential 
matters. The mere scholar may approve or condemn without ade- 
quate appreciation of the popular qualities necessary to a version 
intended for general use, and hence the case cannot be decided by 
him alone ; but, on the other hand, no excellence of the language 
used in translation could perpetuate a version unfaithful to the 
original, or one made from a bad text. In a case like this it is fool- 
ish to oppose the good sense of the Christian reader to the learning 
of the critic. Both are necessary ; “ and the eye cannot say unto 
the hand, I have no need of thee, nor again the head to the feet, I 
have no need of you.” 

In discussing the merits of the Revised Version, questions are 
asked which are by no means equivalent to one another — c.g.. Is it 
certainly superior to the Authorized Version ? Does it accomplish all 
that can reasonably be expected of aversion executed at the present 
time, being up to the mark of present scholarship ? Will it secure 
universal acceptance, and sooner or later take the place of the Au- 
thorized Version, as it has superseded preceding versions? Now, 
the second of these questions, we think, is that which criticism should 
endeavor to answer. If we can answer the second affirmatively, we 
do, of course, answer the first affirmatively at the same time ; but it 
is quite conceivable that the Revised Version maybe in some points 
superior to the Authorized Version, and yet come short of what 
may justly be expected of a revision made in the end of the nine- 
teenth century. The third question — that touching the fate of the 
Revised Version — hardly suggests a proper subject for criticism. If 
the revision shall be found to fulfil all reasonable expectations and 


to meet the wants of the time, it will doubtless secure adequate 
recognition ; but no criticism can enable us to predict its future, 
and say whether it will reign without a rival for more than two cen- 
turies, as the version of 1611 has done. It may, quite conceivably, 
as much excel the Authorized Version as this version did its prede- 
cessors, and yet no lengthened exclusive supremacy be in store for 
it. Some even affirm that in the present advanced state of biblical 
scholarship and of society such ascendency of any single version is 
neither possible nor desirable. But however this may be, criticism, 
it is clear, cannot have an answer to this third question demanded of 
it ; and if it volunteers to deal with the question it will soon dis- 
cover that the knowledge requisite to a categorical answer is quite 
beyond its reach. Our point of view in this article will therefore be 
somewhat in the line of the second question, though we desire to 
exercise the utmost liberty of remark upon particular parts and 
features of the version, irrespective of any general conclusion. To 
come to a peremptory conclusion, yes or no, is indeed of little use ; 
the main thing is to speak with fairness of the several matters which 
fall to be considered, not keeping the eye constantly upon the effect 
of this point or that on the general estimate of merit. And if any 
one professing impartial criticism fails to take in the whole case, and 
metes out general praise or blame on the ground of particular feat- 
ures, or shows a disposition to make too much or too little of merits 
or defects, he does but reveal his own incompetency to fill the office 
of critic, and what he says can in no degree affect the estimate 
which will eventually be formed of the book. 

The task which the revisers proposed to themselves is sufficiently 
indicated by the rules adopted for their guidance. These rules are 
few, and decidedly conservative in spirit ; but they require a revi- 
sion of the text from which the Authorized Version was made as well 
as a revision of the translation ; in this respect differing from the 
instructions under which King James’s translators acted, and in 
which nothing is said regarding text. The American Committee 
agrees to “ co-operate with the British companies on the basis of the 
principles and rules of revision adopted by the British Committee.” 
In some respects the American revisers show themselves less con- 
servative than the British, in other respects more so ; but the work 
of both is to be tried by the same standard. We hardly understand, 
therefore, a statement in the supplement to Dr. Roberts’s “ Com- 
panion to the Revised Version of the New Testament,” in which, 
accounting for the “ greater freedom from old English usage” shown 
in the American Appendix, it is said : “In unimportant or doubtful 
cases the English revisers allowed their regard for the Old Version 




and for English usage to overrule their regard for the Greek text, 
and felt bound to do so by the Canterbury rules." It is of course 
possible that while both companies accepted the same rules, the 
English Company construed them more strictly. 

I. In referring to the work of revision we speak first of what has 
been done for the Text. The fourth rule laid for guidance is : “ That 
the text to be adopted is that for which the evidence is decidedly 
preponderating ; and that when the text so adopted differs from 
that from which the Authorized Version is made the alteration be 
indicated in the margin.” To this rule no exception can well be 
taken. If observed, it necessitates thorough work in ascertaining the 
text ; for in the case of competing readings the evidence must be 
carefully weighed in order to say which reading is sustained by 
evidence “ decidedly preponderating.” 

i. Text of the New Testament. — There is not likely to be very seri- 
ous discussion of the textual labors of the New Testament revisers. 
Yet, considering its responsibility and its intimate connection-with 
the success of their work, this part of our subject cannot be entirely 
passed over. To hold the balance when so many various readings 
have to be weighed, so much evidence adjusted, requires a steady 
hand. Many able editors had preceded, but in no case had the 
responsibility in accepting and rejecting readings been so momen- 
tous. For the book was not for scholars alone — who could compare 
one edition of the Greek text with another— but for the millions 
who were asked to see in it a faithful reproduction of the Word of 

The text followed by the Authorized Version could not boast of 
any great authority. We seem to have no satisfactory statement 
from any of King James’s translators as to the Greek which they 
rendered. That their text was substantially that exhibited in the 
later editions of Beza is, however, sufficiently ascertained. This was 
the text current in England when the version was made, and 
detailed comparison of the Authorized Version with Beza shows 
that his text was generally followed. It need not be said how 
meagre was the material employed in the construction of Beza’s 
New Testament, even in the later editions. Beza’s text was based 
on Stephens’s, as Stephens’s was based on Erasmus’s ; and though 
he used the Codices Cantab, and Claromon., and to some extent the 
recently published Syriac, his text did not exhibit any decided 
advance on that of Stephens. We need not wholly credit the 
allegation that Beza gave preference to readings on dogmatic 
grounds rather than on grounds of criticism, but neither can we 
affirm that he made good use of the slender materials which were in 


his possession. The edition of 1598, esteemed the best which Beza 
had issued, may be regarded as the basis of the Authorized Version. 

Since Beza’s time, and especially in the end of last century and in 
this century, immense labor has been applied, with the most gratify- 
ing results, in establishing the text of the New Testament. We 
may now speak of that text as well ascertained, as approaching per- 
fection. The unlearned, even, do not now need to be told that the 
150,000 various readings, instead of implying a bewildering uncer- 
tainty in the text, are but the assurance that prodigious toil has 
been expended in purifying it to the slightest details. Something 
near to a consensus has now been reached. Compare the later 
editions of Tischendorf with the text of Tregelles, of Westcott and 
Hort, of the revision as published at Oxford and at Cambridge, and 
this becomes abundantly obvious. 

The revisers of the New Testament tell us that while a revision of 
the Greek was the necessary foundation of their work, it did not fall 
within their province to construct a continuous text. In many 
instances variations of text on which editors must decide do not 
affect translation, and in such cases the revisers indicate no opinion ; 
but wherever the translation is affected they determine their text. 
The deviations from the text which is presumed to underlie the 
Authorized Version are not recorded in the margin, as was originally 
intended ; but a carefully prepared list of them was communicated 
to the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge, and the texts 
issued at the Universities show the readings adopted for the revision. 
The Revisers do not claim finality for their text, and in more than 
four hundred instances, where in their judgment it would not “ for 
the present be safe to accept one reading to the absolute exclusion 
of another,” readings of some importance are placed in the margin. 

The text of the Revisers will be found to correspond more nearly 
with that of Westcott and Hort than with any other. Let any pas- 
sage in which there are many various readings be selected for com- 
parison — say the twenty-first chapter of Revelation— and the text of 
the revision and of Westcott and Hort will be found practically 
identical. This decisive influence of these eminent scholars upon 
the text was to be expected, for they were members of the Revision 
Company, which had the use of advanced proof-sheets of their edi- 
tion of the New Testament. It was doubtless of much advantage to 
the company to have members so well qualified by special study to 
deal with textual matters ; for their New Testament is probably 
entitled to the praise which Schaff awards it — “ the best critical 
edition of the Greek Testament.” The revisers, as a body, did not 
need to collate hundreds of MSS., as the great editors of the New 



Testament had done. They had before them the unimpeachable 
record of the labors of these distinguished scholars, and results in 
which all agreed could be accepted without hesitation. There were 
among them men who for nearly thirty years had been engaged in 
examining the sources of the text, and whose individual labors will 
secure for them a high position among textual critics ; but the high- 
est honors of the textual critic cannot be claimed for the Revisers as 
a body. Nor are we saying anything to their disparagement ; for in 
the matter of textual construction they probably did all that was 
required of them ; and had they deemed it their duty to examine for 
themselves all the vouchers for the text, accepting no results of edi- 
tors without verification, they would all have passed away before the 
work of amending the translation had begun. Whatever measure of 
credit is here due to the Revisers, the text translated by them is 
certainly a good text. As published at the Universities it cannot 
claim, like that of Westcott and Hort, to be finished ad unguem , but 
for practical purposes it is equal to theirs. In a few instances the 
Revisers have placed on the margin readings which these critics have 
admitted into the text, but this is the chief evidence of a higher 
conservatism in the text of the former ; and in some cases the rule 
as to a two thirds vote may account for the position which these 
readings occupy. 

It may thus be said that in textual revision everything has been 
done that could well be expected, and that the results of the 
criticism of the last hundred years are faithfully represented in the 
text which underlies the revision.* 

* Every reader is aware that many of the most important changes found in the Re- 
vised Version are the consequence of changes which had to be made in the original. If 
the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is omitted (Matt. vi. 13) ; if the words regarding the 
angel who troubled the water have disappeared (John v. 4) ; if the Eunuch’s confession 
before his baptism is not found (Acts viii. 37) ; if in Col. ii. 2 we read, “ the mystery of 
God even Christ if in I Tim. iii. 16, “ He who was manifested in the flesh” takes 
the place of “ God was manifested in the flesh if the statement as to the heavenly 
witnesses is gone (I John v. 7, 8); if the words, “blessed are they that wash their 
robes” supersede “ blessed are they that do His commandments” (Rev. xxii. 14) ; these 
and other important changes and omissions are due to changes which have been made, 
and which it was necessary to make, in the original text. It is useless for the ordinary 
reader to say that he deprecates such alterations in the Word of God, or that he prefers 
the Authorized Version ; because the whole question is one as to the words which the 
Holy Spirit gave. If, again, Mark xvi. 9-20 appears as a detached paragraph, it is 
because this passage is not contained in the two oldest MSS., and some other authorities 
for the text, and because some MSS. have a different ending to the Gospel ; and if John 
vii. 53 — viii. 11 is also detached and enclosed in brackets, it is because most of the 
ancient authorities omit the passage, while those which have it vary much from one 
another. The Revisers have carefully sought, by the form in which these passages 
appear, to show every reader that their genuineness is not completely ascertained. The 


Most of the textual changes of any importance have been agreed 
to by critics for some time ; a few have but recently secured a con- 
sensus in their favor, but we cannot say that the Revisers have either 
made important alterations in advance of the consensus, or timidly 
refrained from change when it was required by the true principles of 
textual criticism. The work of the Revisers in this department, 
though subject to correction in places, will be approved. 

This is the proper place to say that we agree with the American 
Revisers in wishing to strike out “ Saint” from the titles of the 
Gospels and the headings of the pages, and to revise the titles of the 
Epistles according to the best authorities. The titles of the several 
books are not, indeed, part of the inspired text, but there is no good 
reason why we should not have them as accurate as possible. It is 
a senseless thing for Protestants to prefix “ Saint” to the names of 
the Evangelists. 

2. Text of the Old Testament. The fourth rule of the Revision 
Committee — viz., “ That the text to be adopted be that for which 
the evidence is decidedly preponderating,” would lead us to expect 
a careful revision of the text of the Old Testament as well as of the 
New. In regard to the text of the New Testament nothing more 
can be asked, but many will be disappointed to find that no continu- 
ous and thorough revision of the Hebrew has been attempted. The 
Massoretic text has been departed from “ only in exceptional in- 
stances.” A few times the Authorized Version had departed from 
the Massoretic text ; in some of these instances it is followed by the 
Revised Version, but in others the revision returns to the Hebrew. 
In fifteen instances the Revised Version follows the ancient versions 
in preference to the Hebrew ; twice it corrects the Hebrew by 
parallel passages, and twice by critical conjecture. In over two 
hundred instances various readings from the versions are placed in 
the margin. Both the imperfection of the Massoretic text and the 
propriety of revision are thus acknowledged by the Revisers. 

As to the existence of many errors in the Massoretic text there is, 
and there can be, no difference of opinion. In the second or third 

enclosing of the latter passage in brackets, in addition to detaching it, is probably meant 
to signify that it has less support than the end of Mark. The fidelity of the Revisers is 
to be approved in this last instance, though we doubt whether it was well to detach the 
end of Mark’s Gospel, seeing that its canonical authority is hardly questioned. 

We cannot, of course, point out in detail the many changes in every book of the New 
Testament due to changes in the text. Let it suffice to indicate as specimens a few 
passages in which such changes, of greater or less importance, will be found : Matt, 
xviii. 17 ; Mark vi. 20 ; ix. 22, 23 ; Luke xvi. 9 ; John xiii. 24 ; Acts xvi. 7 ; Rom. 
iv. 19 ; vii. 6 ; I. Cor. xi. 24 ; Gal. iv. 14 ; Eph. v. 29 ; Col. ii. 18 ; Heb. iv. 2 ; x. 34 ; 
xi. 13 ; Janies i. 19 ; I. Pet. ii. 21 ; II. Pet. iii. 2 ; I. John iii. 1 ; Jude i.; Rev. xvii. 8. 



century the attention of the scribes was directed to discrepancies in 
the text, and in eighteen places we have “ corrections of the 
scribes,” in five “ rejections of the scribes,” etc. The Larger Mas- 
sora gives more than two thousand Kcris, or various readings. 
This, indeed, is a brief list in comparison with the 150,000 various 
readings in the New Testament ; but we must not hence infer that 
the original Hebrew less needs revision than the original Greek. 
There are many obvious errors which destroy or impair the sense of 
passages. I Sam. xiii. 1, c.g., if correctly rendered, would read : 
“ Saul was a year old when he reigned, and he reigned two years 
over Israel. ” Here are two glaring errors ; and all that the Author- 
ized Version can do is to render, quite unwarrantably : “ Saul 
reigned one year ; and, when he had reigned two years over Israel,” 
etc. The Revised Version corrects after a late recension of the 
LXX : “ Saul was thirty years old,” etc. Let any one peruse 
Wellhausen’s edition of Samuel, and, whatever he may think of the 
proposed reconstruction of the text, he will not doubt that the 
original stands in need of revision. The like inference will follow 
comparison of the Hebrew with the LXX in Jeremiah ; though in 
saying this we do not endorse the opinion that the Septuagint was 
made from a text certainly superior to the Massoretic. 

As touching revision of the text, the Revisers’ Preface to the Old 
Testament says : “ But as the state of knowledge on the subject is 
not at present such as to justify our entire reconstruction of the text 
on the authority of the versions, the Revisers have thought it most 
prudent to adopt the Massoretic text as the basis of their work, and 
to depart from it, as the authorized translators had done, only in 
exceptional cases.” We cannot here discuss the important question 
as to the value of the versions, and especially the Septuagint, in 
correcting the text of the Old Testament. The critics widely differ, 
some holding that the Septuagint represents a text superior to the 
Massoretic, and is of the greatest value for correcting the Hebrew, 
while others regard it as a very unreliable authority. On the follow- 
ing grounds the value of the Septuagint as a voucher for the text is 
questioned : (a) The meaning of the Hebrew is often mistaken by 
this version where there is no doubt regarding the text, (b) In 
several places there is evidence of liberties having been taken with 
the Hebrew in order to remove difficulties, (c) The text of the 
Septuagint itself is insecure, and till it shall be thoroughly revised 
we must use it with great hesitation for amendment of the Hebrew. 
( d ) Versions, at best, are of secondary value as sources of the text. 
It is replied : ( a ) That the Septuagint, in many parts of it, is a good 
translation. ( b ) That often where it differs from the Hebrew it 


bears on its face evidence of being derived from a purer text. 
(c) That, while it requires to be carefully edited, yet in its present 
condition it is of extreme value for textual criticism. ( cL ) That in 
the absence of early Hebrew MSS. versions have greater value as 
authorities for the text than in the case of the New Testament. 

Now, it is charged against the Revisers : (a) That they have not 
availed themselves as they should of Massoretic material for textual 
reconstruction, and have made slender use of the labors of such 
men as Baer, Strack, and Ginsberg, (b) That the limited use made 
of the versions shows that these sources of the text might have been 
much more drawn upon. “ In some few instances of extreme diffi- 
culty a reading has been adopted on the authority of the ancient 
versions” (Preface to Old Testament). But in other instances of 
equal difficulty the aid of the versions has not been sought. Where 
is the consistency of this procedure ? The Revisers have done either 
too little or too much. 

It is clear, we think, that neither the Massoretic material for revis- 
ion nor that which may be supplied by the versions is in such con- 
dition as to be immediately available for thorough revision of the 
Plebrew text ; so that the Revisers should not be blamed for not 
reconstructing the text of the Old Testament. But when it is said 
that the text, already corrected in nineteen passages, might have 
been corrected in a good many more, we are unable to maintain the 
contrary. We cannot agree with the American Committee that 
“ all renderings from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and other anoient ver- 
sions or ‘ authorities,’ should be omitted from the margin,” but would 
prefer rather that in certain instances such renderings should have 
been placed in the text. Why, e.g . , in the light of Judges viii. 7, 
should not the sixteenth verse of said chapter have been corrected 
after the Septuagint ? It is hardly less certain that the Septuagint 
is right in I. Sam. xxv. 22, and in several other places. 

We do not severely censure the Revisers for not attempting more 
in reformation of the text. Their responsibility was very great, and 
the extreme caution which dissuaded them from farther change till 
the material for revision should be better sifted is on the whole to 
be commended. But somewhat more might safely have been done- — 
should, in consistency, have been done. In any case, the fact that 
the text of the Old Testament has not been revised places the work 
done on this part of the Bible a good way behind that done on the 
New Testament in value. We hope that such material as we have 
for correcting the Hebrew text will continue to be ascertained and 
reverently applied by competent scholars until— if this be possible — 
we shall have as nearly a consensus regarding the text of the Old 



Testament as we now have regarding that of the New Testament. 
The Revised Version of the Old Testament will not then be rendered 
obsolete, but it will require to be retouched in a good many passages. 

II. We now come to speak of the work of translation in the 
Revised Version. Has this part of the task been successfully accom- 
plished ? The inquiry involves a good many separate points. 

It is not to be forgotten that the Revised Version is not, and does 
not profess to be, a new translation. The very first rule of revision 
is “ to introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the 
Authorized Version consistent with faithfulness.” The first rule 
laid down for King James’s translators is substantially identical : 
“ The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the 
Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will 
permit though the late Revisers were not bound by any such im- 
proper restriction as we find in King James’s third rule : “ The old 
ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be trans- 
lated congregation." They enjoyed full liberty to make changes 
where fidelity so required, being only enjoined ‘‘to limit as far as 
possible such alterations to the language of the Authorized and 
earlier English Versions.” It has thus been sought to preserve the 
continuity of the English Bible, and still to build upon the splendid 
foundation laid in Tyndale’s and the Geneva Bibles. In seeking to 
present the Word of God in the best form to the Anglo-Saxon race 
it would have been the height of unwisdom to attempt an entirely 
new translation. Our veneration for the admirable version which 
has nourished our religious life for more than two centuries, and the 
language of which has so penetrated our religious literature- — pen- 
etrated our very being — hardly left it possible, indeed, that a trans- 
lation not in the mould of the Authorized Version should be made. 
We cannot simply supersede a Bible of transcendent literary excel- 
lence, with a history redolent of martyrdom, and inseparably con- 
nected with the entire development of Protestantism among the 
English race. 

Accordingly, in reading the Revised Version, either Old Tes- 
tament or New, we do not feel that we have a new translation in our 
hands. Even those who have the language of the Authorized 
Version pretty well in memory will often read many consecutive 
sentences without being arrested by anything as unfamiliar. While 
the changes, great and small, are numbered by tens of thousands, 
the general complexion of the English Bible remains as it was, and 
persons reading the Scriptures together may use, one the Author- 
ized Version and another the Revised Version, without any incon- 
venience. It is pleasant to find that the translation retains its 


identity ; but of course this fact does not show that the work of 
revision has been successfully done. We must therefore look at 
some of the outstanding features due to attempted improvements of 

i. New Testament. The Revisers thus classify the alterations 
made in translation : Due (a) to change of the original text, (b) to 
the correction of inaccurate renderings, ( c ) to the change of obscure 
or ambiguous renderings into such as are clear and definite, ( d ) to 
the removal of inconsistencies of rendering, (e) to changes rendered 
necessary by the foregoing alterations. Of textual emendation we 
have already spoken. The more important deviations from the 
Authorized Version, which startle the ordinary reader, are due to 
correction of the original. Textual criticism was bound to do its 
work — which was often that of removal ; but the rendering of new 
readings seems to be unimpeachable, and nothing special needs to 
be said regarding it. The five categories of the Revisers cover the 
whole ground, and in considering them one by one the work of 
amended translation might be thoroughly reviewed ; but we must 
content ourselves with a few remarks under categories much less 

(i) We have corrections of the Authorized Version where it has 
mistaken the meaning of the original. These are not very numer- 
ous, and they are mostly in lexicography, though a few of them 
relate to the combination of words and clauses.* 

* In Matt. x. 4 and Mark iii. 18 “ Simon the Canaanite” becomes (after the Vulgate) 
“ Simon the Canantean but vve cannot see why the marginal rendering, “ Simon 
the Zealot,” should not have been preferred, in harmony with Luke vi. 15 and Acts 
i. 13. (6 ^r/'XuT(/g=KavavcTr/g, from SOp.) In Matt. xiv. 8 ‘‘she being instructed 

(pr<Emo 7 iita — Vulgate) of hermother” becomes “ she being put forward.” ” Led on” or 
‘‘ urged on” would perhaps have been still better. “ Yet ” is properly exchanged for 
“ yea”- — Matt. xv. 27 : “ Yea, Lord, for even the dogs eat,” etc. The true force of the 
woman’s plea is thus seen. In Matt. xxvi. 15 “ covenanted” gives place to “ weighed.” 
Something might, doubtless, be said for “ constituerunt” (Vulgate), but as loTq/21 has 
the meaning of weigh — place in the balance — it is better to adopt this rendering (see 
Zech. xi. 12). Luke iii. 23 properly becomes, “ And Jesus Himself when He began to 
teach was about thirty years of age.” Luke ix. 32 reads, “ But Peter and they that 
were with Him were heavy with sleep ; yet having remained awake,” etc. The mis- 
rendering, “ And when they were awake,” no longer obscures the sense. In Luke 
xviii. 12, as in several other places, Krao/iai gets its proper signification, ” acquire.” 
One hardly knows whether John ix. 17 should be called a mistranslation or not, but the 
sense is clearer in the Revised Version. In John x. 14, 15, in place of the independent 
proposition — “ As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father” — by which the con- 
nection is broken, we have the completeness and beauty of the thought restored by the 
true rendering : “ I know mine own and mine own know me, even as the Father know- 
eth me and I know the Father.” Acts iii. 19, 20 gives ottoi; the only meaning it can 
have : “ Repent ye, therefore, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come 
seasons of refreshing,” etc. ; even as in Heb. ii. 9 curuf has certainly this meaning : 



These are not the only instances in which the mistakes of the 
Authorized Version as to the meaning of words, or their collocation, 
have been corrected, but they are sufficient to show that the Revised 
Version has improved upon its predecessor. It is, however, cer- 
tainly to be regretted that the Revisers, who take so many hints 
from the Vulgate, have not followed it in distinguishing Saif-ioov and 
Sai/.ioviov from SiafioXo;. It seems inexplicable that the true ren- 
dering should appear on the margin, not in the text. There are also 
changes made, as in II. Tim iii. 16, in which it is far from certain 
that the revision is right. 

(2) The Revised Version is more accurate than the Authorized 
Version m rendering the tenses, the article, the prepositions, and the 
particles, as also in the discrimination of synonyms. 

(a) In the tenses the revision is a manifest improvement upon the 
Authorized Version. In the time of King James’s translation the 
Greek language was, of course, studied through the medium of the 
Latin. It is instructive to observe how their (the translators’) ac- 
curacy fails for the most part just at the point where the Latin lan- 
guage ceases to run parallel with the Greek” (Lightfoot) ; and hence 
we are not surprised to find that they much confound the aorist and 
the perfect. The Revisers carefully distinguish these tenses, taking 
advantage of the fact that “ the Greek tongue agreeth more with 
the English than with the Latin” (Tyndale). Recollecting that the 
Greek aorist does not always exactly correspond to our past, and the 
Greek perfect to our perfect, it may even be doubted whether the 
Revisers have not sometimes rendered the aorist by a past when the 
perfect should have been preferred ; but in most cases where the 
tenses are more closely discriminated the gain is obvious.* * 

“ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” must give way to “With but little 
persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian” (Acts xxvi. 28). In Rom. iii. 25 
-apeaig is no longer identified with aibcatg ; though we cannot say that “ sins done afore- 
time” is a very happy rendering. The proper rendering of tipta/ifievu (ll. Cor. ii. 14) 
is “ lead in triumph,” not “ cause to triumph.” Gal. v. 17 is now : “ That ye may not 
do the things that ye would.” “ We beseech you in regard to the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” not “ by the coming,” etc. (II. Thess. ii. 1). Interesting corrections of 
the Authorized Version are found in I. Tim. vi. 2, 5 ; Heb. xi. 13, and I. Pet. iii. 21. 
In Revelation the offensive word “ beast” no longer represents £uov, which term the 
English reader can now distinguish from tij/pcov. 

* Beyond question the Revisers are right in rendering yeyovev ~ as perfect in John i. 3, 
and thus in distinguishing it from eyevero in the same verse : “ All things were made 
by Him, and without Him was not anything made that hath been made.” So in I. Cor. 
xv. 4 we properly read : “ Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures . . . He 
was buried . . . He hath been raised He died once, He remains the risen Lord. In 
II. Cor. xii. 2 we read : “ I know ( ol6a ) a man in Christ ” — not “ knew,” wrongly sug- 
gesting that the Apostle is speaking of some deceased acquaintance instead of himself. 
We give an instance or two in which the aorist with much advantage gets its proper 


(b) The want of a definite article in the Latin accounts, as in the 
case of the tenses, for the extremely inaccurate and capricious way 
in’ which this part of speech is dealt with in the Authorized Version. 
The Revised Version, as we might expect, is fully alive to the value 
of the article, and some quite important changes in translation are 
the result. It were too much to claim perfection for the revision in 
this matter, because we cannot always adequately represent the 
Greek article in English any more than the Greek tenses ; but the 
Revisers always endeavor to appreciate the article, and carefully note 
its presence or absence.'* * 

rendering. In Acts xix. 2 the meaning is obscured in the translation — “ Have ye re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?” The correct rendering is now given : “ Did 
ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed ?” In II. Cor. v. 14 the revision is : 
“ Because we thus judge that one died for all, therefore all died all died when their 
substitute died. The passage is rescued from a false interpretation, and every reader 
sees that the Apostle does not mean that all were spiritually dead when Christ died for 
them, however true this may be. When the aorists are correctly rendered in such pas- 
sages as Rom. vi. 2-4 and Col. ii. 11-14, how vividly the fact of the believer’s union to 
Christ and the actuality of the spiritual change which has taken place in him are repre- 
sented. When Christ died he died, and when Christ rose he rose, and the new life in 
everything essential to it was definitely originated when that which baptism signifies 
took place. We thus see that more than exact scholarship is concerned in the sort 
of improvements effected by the more accurate rendering of tenses. 

Very many instances might be given in which the revision profits by the more 
accurate rendering of the imperfect tense : Luke i. 59, “ They would have called him 
Zacharias” (eicaXovv) ; not “they called.” Luke v. 6: “Their nets were breaking;” 
not “ they brake.” Luke viii. 23 : “ Then came down a storm of wind on the lake, 
and they were filling with water not “ were filled.” The imperfect has many shades 
of meaning which cannot always be accurately represented in our language, but which 
the Authorized Version does not even try to represent. Thus, when the Lord would 
receive baptism at the hands of John (Matt. iii. 14), the Authorized Version reads : 
“ John forbade Him” (dientihvev) ; it is a great improvement to read, “ John would have 
hindered Him.” Again, in Gal. iv. 20 : “I desire to be present with you” (i/deXov 6e 
irapdvai) becomes “ I could wish to be present with you.” Heb. ix. 6, 7, 9 ; Acts ii. 47, 
and many places besides show that the present tense also is more accurately rendered 
in the revision. 

* Every one, of course, knew beforehand that in Rom. v. 15-19 we should find 0 hi; 
and 61 TzoXhol rendered “the one” and “ the many,” and whether such alteration be 
deemed theologically significant or not, no scholar will object to it. In Matt. xxiv. 12 
we read : “ The love of the many shall wax cold.” Much has been written as to the 
difference between v6[j.o<; and 6 vdpog in the Epistle to the Romans, and many expositors 
maintain that the anarthrous noun has the same meaning as the noun with the article ; 
even the Mosaic law. We rather think that, in some instances at least, the Apostle sees 
the principle of law — law in the widest sense — lying behind the concrete manifestation 
of it in the Mosaic law, and that he would expressly exclude the possibility of attaining 
life through law in any form. The Revised Version takes less liberty with the article 
here than the Authorized Version does, but we cannot say that no blame is to be 
attached to it. Why in Rom. iii. 30 ; iv. 13, etc., should it put on the margin the ren- 
dering which is grammatically preferable ? 

In the Gospels Xpicrdg has not yet become a proper noun, and it is found four times 



(r) The prepositions also are rendered with more exactness by the 
Revised Version. There was room for improvement, although the 
extent of the inaccuracy of King James’s translation has been exag- 
gerated, especially by those who make no distinction between 
archaisms and errors. 

It is quite unnecessary to defend the position that the New Tes- 
tament employs the prepositions, as it employs the particles, in a 
definite and accurate way. No one now thinks of taking such liberties 
in translating them as the Hellenists, in accordance with their esti- 
mate of New Testament Greek, maintained to be necessary. Still, 
it has always to be remembered that the Common Dialect differs to 
some extent from the classic in the use of the preposition, as in 
many other points ; as also that the use of the prepositions in the 
New Testament is affected by the Hebrew prepositions of similar 

We do not blame the Authorized Version for using “ by” rather 
than “ through” in rendering Sid with the genitive ; for whatever 
may be thought of uniformly substituting through for by in revising 
the English Bible, we must bear in mind that in the seventeenth 
century by was freely used in the sense of through; but there can be 
no justification of rendering Sid with the accusative (propter) as if 
it were used with the genitive (per.).* 

only without the article ; the Authorized Version properly renders the article. In the 
Acts of the Apostles the Gospel is four times called “ the way” (r/ 666g). The Author- 
ized Version, which so frequently overlooks the article, gives in these instances the em- 
phatic rendering “ this way” or “ that way the Revised Version is accurate. In Heb. 
xi. io the Authorized Version gives the senseless translation, “ He looked for a city 
which hath foundations,” twice in one clause disregarding the article. The Revised 
Version, as it should, renders the article both times : “ He looked for the city which 
hath the foundations” — that much desired city, the New Jerusalem, the home of the 
saints. Both versions are correct in I. Thess. ii. 16 : “ The wrath is come upon them to 
the uttermost.” “ The wrath” is the wrath of God, ” the wrath to come,” of which the 
Baptist warned men. Now, almost certainly in Rom. xii. 19 the term should be 
rendered also : “ Give place to the wrath.” The Revised Version has ventured to give 
this rendering only as marginal. The utter absence of rule on the part of the Author- 
ized Version in dealing with the article is illustrated in rendering I. Tim. vi. 10 : “ For 
the love of money is the root of all evil.” There may be difference of opinion as to 
whether ruv nantiv should be ‘‘all the evils” (all kinds of evil — Revised Version), or 
simply “all evils” ; but there can be none as to the impropriety of rendering p/fa 
“ the root.” How often has one heard this rendering used to sustain a false position 
in ethics ! 

* In John vi. 57 this is done to the great injury of the meaning : “ As the living 
Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father ( did, tov - aripa ) ; so he that eateth me, 
even he shall live by me” ( <51 tfit). The Revised Version gives us back the true mean- 
ing — the great truth that Christ is the fountain of life, even as the Father is. For other 
instances in which the sense is altered by mistranslation of 61a with the accusative see 
Matt. xv. 3, 6 ; John xv. 3 ; Rom. ii. 24 ; viii. 11 ; Heb. vi. 7). To see how much this 


The preposition in which, next to 6 ia, the Authorized Version 
shows greatest laxity is sis, and its most serious errors are corrected 
in the revision. The Authorized Version renders fiontrtt^siv sis 
u. r. A. “baptize in’’ and also (I. Cor. x. 2) “baptize into.’’ In 
Matt, xxviii. 19 we now read “ baptizing them into {sis) the name,’’ 
etc., and the same correction is made in all the instances in which 
the phrase is found. In Luke xxiii. 42 the Authorized Version has 
deliberately given sv the meaning of si?, even as in the baptismal 
formula it gives si? the meaning of sv. It is of course possible that 
the reading si s ri)v fatnXsiav was before King James’s translators, 
but we rather think they simply followed the Vulgate (“ in regnum 
tunin') when they gave the rendering, “ Remember me when thou 
comest into thy kingdom.’’ We might speak also of liberties taken 
by the Authorized Version with stci, ano and vnsp, but we pass 
from the subject of prepositions with a sentence or two on the 
superiority of the Revised Version in dealing with verbs compounded 
with prepositions. Keeping in remembrance that a preposition does 
not always contribute the force of its own proper meaning to a com- 
pound term of which it is part, especially in the later Greek, it must 
yet be admitted that the Authorized Version is extremely faulty in 

preposition required more care in rendering, it is only necessary to remember that the 
Authorized Version also ttanslates it by at, for, and even to. 

Perhaps the passage in which this last rendering is given exhibits the most remark- 
able instance we have of violence done to a preposition in order to obtain what is 
deemed a suitable meaning (II. Pet. i. 3). On philological grounds “ to glory and 
virtue” could never be proposed as the rendering of Ad nal aperf/g. The Revised 
Version is relieved of all difficulty here, for it adopts as the true text Ibig. bo^y koi 
apery, and renders : “ Called us by His own glory and virtue.” 

The Revised Version, however, is not entitled to the highest praise in its treatment of 
(ha. In apparent disregard of its own rule, it has given different translations without 
any sufficient reason ; and in regard to two important classes of passages this procedure 
is to be regretted. These passages relate to the Word of God as given through the 
prophets, and creation as being through the Son. In view of the importance of 
making the distinction between v-k 6 and Ad — primary motive agency and instrumental- 
ity — we can hardly hesitate to say that the American Revisers were right in wishing 
through rather than hy to translate Ad in the passages which relate to the prophet in 
delivering God’s message. In the passages touching creation by the Son Ad is rendered 
in the Revised Version both by through and by. Then in I. Cor. viii. 6 : “ And one 
Lord Jesus Christ through (bta) whom are all things, and we through (Ad) Him.” 
Heb. ii. 1 : “ Through (Ad) whom also He made the worlds.” In these and other 
similar passages the Authorized Version is altered ; but in John i. 3 we still have : 
“ All things were made by (Ad) Him,” and in verse 10: “ The world was made by 
Him.” The American Company might well have asked that through should be used in 
both classes of passages. In passages of important theological bearing too great pre- 
cision cannot be employed, and the pleasant flavor of archaism which “ by” has in 
some of the instances referred to cannot justify the preference given to a less definite 



observing the distinction between simple verbs and the same verbs 
with prepositions prefixed. In some passages much confusion and 
obscurity ensue.* 

(d) The subject of New Testament synonyms has now been very 
thoroughly investigated by Tittmann, Trench, Webster and Wilkin- 
son. and other eminent scholars. Much fine material was prepared 
for the Revisers by expositors like Bengel, as also by learned editors 
and critics of the Greek classics. Of this material excellent use has 
been made, and the consequence is that inaccuracies have been 
removed and new and beautiful light shed upon a good many pas- 
sages. We cannot here go into much detail, but a few instances 
may be adduced where the meaning is clearly improved by a more 
accurate discrimination of synonyms. f 

* A notable instance is found in Kp'cvav and its compound avanpiveiv (examine), Scaup. 
(discuss), Karaccp. (condemn), tyap. (reckon among), and cvyap (combine, compare). By 
comparing the two versions in such passages as I. Cor. vi. 45 ; xi. 29-31, 32 ; Rom. 
xiv. 22, 23, it will be seen that the Revised Version has greater precision. We cannot 
say, however, that the Revisers have done for this group of compounds all that might 
have been done. In I. Cor. iv. 3-5, why should they not have discriminated between 
Kpcvecv and dvaapiveev ? The margin, indeed, gives “ examine” for dvanp. ; but why should 
not this rendering, which seems obviously correct, have been preferred ? The avaap'iocc, 
as one of the Revisers has himself pointed out, was an Athenian law term for a pre- 
liminary investigation, and is not identical with the actual trial, the apian -. By giving 
the right rendering in the passage relating to the Lord’s Supper the revision has, how- 
ever, done real service to the ordinary reader, a service all the more needed that 
the term “ damnation” — which was never the correct rendering of apiatq — had ceased to 
be equivalent to condemnation. The correct translation of Sie/.rj/.v^dra (Heb. iv. 14) — 
“passed through the heavens” — has taken the place of the impossible rendering, ” passed 
into the heavens.” In Heb. ii. 16 the Authorized Version renders the preposition in 
’rxi/Afcjlavcrai, but renders it wrongly, whilst by a singular combination of errors the 
tense also is mistranslated ; the Revised Version gives the correct translation in both. 
The view which now prevails as to the character of New Testament Greek, not to speak 
of the vast work done by accurate exposition, renders it, of course, absolutely impossible 
that the laxity with which prepositions, whether apart or in composition, were treated 
in the earlier revisions of the English Bible, should disfigure a revision of the present 

f In Matt. xix. 17, and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, the sense is helped by 
distinguishing between vtoq and naivSq. The unlearned reader benefits by the recogni- 
tion in John xxi. 15-17 of the difference between (looau , “ feed,” and szoipacvu, “ tend,” 
even though this latter term (to do the work of a shepherd), be inadequately rendered 
by any single word. And if in the same context ayairau and <}>Ueu be not distinguished, 
as happens also to epoirdu and acreu in ch. xvi. 23, this simply shows the inadequacy of 
a language so rich as English to accomplish all that the perfection of translation re- 
quires. In John x. 16 avAr/ and ~o'ipvij t fold and flock , are no longer confounded. In 
Revelation, as already remarked, the “ monsters of the abyss,” and the exalted beings 
who worship before the throne — the 1 irjp'ca and the C,ioa — are no longer identified in 
name. In Gal. i. 6, 7 crepoq and a?dioq are discriminated as “different” and 
“ another,” and we no longer read of “ another Gospel which is not another.” Many 
other instances might be given in which synonyms are distinguished to the clearing of 


Looking at what is accomplished in amending the translation, we 
should expect any competent judge to say that the work is well and 
thoroughly done. No finality of perfection has been reached. It is 
impossible that the revision should in every matter reflect the very 
best judgment and scholarship in the company of Revisers, for many 
improvements were doubtless negatived by minorities, under the rule 
as to a two thirds vote — -a rule of salutary operation, on the whole, 
though it has doomed to the margin many a rendering worthy of a 
place in the text, or even prevented the better translation from 
reaching that secondary honor. Were there any way of having 
every point in the whole compass of the work decided in accordance 
with the best knowledge, we should have an ideal translation ; but 
no body of men acting together, though it should embrace the chief 
experts, could attain any such result. 

2. Translation of Old Testament. In rendering any production 
from one language into another there is unavoidable loss. The 
most complete mastery of both languages will not enable the trans- 
lator to preserve everything which he finds in his original. The finer 
shadings of meaning can hardly be reproduced with absolute pre- 
cision. Compositions full of genius, characterized by tender senti- 
ment or beautiful but recondite allusion, will especially suffer when 
they must speak in another tongue. Now the Bible, in many parts 
of it, is on all hands allowed to exhibit the very highest literary 
genius. We cannot claim for the Scriptures complete exemption 
from the disadvantages incident to translation, but it is remarkable 
that, while possessing those attributes of literary supremacy which 
would be expected to make translation exceptionally difficult — to 
doom all versions to a hopeless inferiority to the originals — -there are 
actually few writings which bear translation with less injury. In 
this, as in other respects, the Bible shows itself to be a book for 
mankind. Speaking of the Old Testament, Tyndale says : “ The 
properties of the Hebrew agreeth a thousand times more with the 
English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is in both 
one, so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate 
it into English, word for word.” This*is in substance true, equally 

the sense. The impossibility of finding English equivalents for Greek synonyms has 
prevented the Revisers from always reproducing the differences seen in the original, 
and we regret to add that in some instances when this might have been done — at least 
approximately: — it has not been attempted, except by the margin. It would surely have 
been well in the parable of the marriage feast (Matt, xxii.) to distinguish the human 
ministers (Sovaoi) from the angelic ( ihanovot ), as the older versions generally do ; and in 
Gal. vi. 2, 5, to avoid puzzling the reader, by rendering both flapog and (poprlov by “ but- 
den.” Better introduce into the text the marginal “ load,” though not an unexception- 
able translation of the latter term. 




true of the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New 
Testament. The A tgi? eipoplrr/, as Aristotle calls it — the speech in 
which clauses are “ more frequently co-ordinated than subordinated, 
and sentence follows sentence in the way of constructive parallelism 
rather than of logical sequence”— prevails largely in the Bible. If 
the New Testament is to be classed with the Old Testament in this 
feature it is due to its Hebrew idiom, as to the fact that Greek had 
passed into a dialect (7; uoivrj) which knows nothing of the multiplex 
subtilty of particles found in the dialect of Plato. 

The translation of the Old Testament needed revision still more 
than that of the New. The New contained numerous errors — a few 
of them serious — but the Old had many passages — some of them 
considerably long — in which no suitable meaning could be traced. 
Some parts were so little intelligible that most readers were almost 
disposed to pass them by ; occasionally statements which seemed 
quite inapposite would tempt persons of defective reverence to 
speak lightly of the Word of God, and there were mistranslations 
which caused unnecessary difficulty in matters of morality. The 
duty, therefore, of improving our Common Version, in this part of 
it, was not doubtful ; nor could the attempt be much delayed with- 
out seeming to countenance the pernicious opinion that the Old 
Testament is an obsolete book, with which we Christians have little 
to do. 

Great advances had also been made in the scholarship requisite to 
revision of the translation of the Old Testament, and important 
preparations made for the work. It was of service to have editions 
of the Septuagint and Vulgate superior to those in the hands of 
King James’s translators, and to possess the Syriac, which was not 
known in Europe in 1611. Hebrew lexicography and grammar, 
though far behind Greek lexicography and grammar, were in a very 
different condition from that in which the Buxtorfs left them. 
Lexicography in general had become a science in which the histori- 
cal and logical development of meanings was carefully considered, 
and by Gesenius and others the Hebrew language was investigated 
according to the improved method, and with large knowledge of the 
cognate languages and the general principles of philology. The 
same eminent scholar had done much for Hebrew grammar ; still 
more, perhaps, was done by Ewald, and English and American 
scholars had labored in the same field. The geography, topography 
and antiquities of Palestine and adjacent countries had been put on 
a new foundation by Ritter, Robinson, the Palestine Exploration 
Fund, etc.; Egyptian studies had illustrated many parts of Script- 
ure ; while in Babylonia and Assyria there had been brought to light 


not only important records, but languages in close affinity with the 
holy tongue. Everything seemed ready for the great and difficult 
task. The serious drawback of an unrevised original text existed, 
but in everything else there was no comparison between the condi- 
tions under which the late revision took place and those under which 
the Authorized Version was executed. 

We have now, therefore, to inquire whether (apart from the ques- 
tion of text) the Old Testament Revisers have done their work well ; 
whether they profited as they might by the advanced knowledge of 
the Hebrew language ; whether the labors of the recent critical 
expositors have been adequately availed of ; whether our English 
Bible is now in a form which will increase its general usefulness ; 
whether, at the end of these fourteen years, we have, not merely a 
version somewhat improved, but one such as might be expected 
from large and representative companies of English and American 
scholars. We are not anxious (as was said in speaking of the New 
Testament) to close our essay with categorical answers to such 
questions ; but if any contribution shall be made to a fair estimate 
of the work done on the Old Testament we shall be abundantly 

(i) The revision of the Old Testament has removed archaisms 
which are generally unintelligible or misleading. In the Old Tes- 
tament these are much more numerous than in the New, and hence 
their disappearance is an improvement of some importance. Such 
words as artillery (weapons), carriage (baggage, goods), coast 
(border), champaign (plain, Arabah), brigandine (coat of mail), ear 
(plow), habergeon (coat of mail), leasing (falsehood), zvith the 
manner (in the act), let (hinder, loose), nephezv (grandson), occupy 
(trade), prevent (meet), road (raid), tache (clasp), vagabond (wan- 
derer), zvimple (shawl), very properly give place to other words cur- 
rent in ordinary English. Without attempting to hold the balance 
between English and American Revisers in the matter of archaisms, 
we must express regret that the process of removal has not been 
carried somewhat farther, and that bravery (finery), charger (platter), 
cunning (skilful), kerchief (head-covering), harness (armor), ointment 
(perfume), tired (attired), and a good many other obsolete terms 
have been spared. No person of sense or taste would wish to strip 
our English Bible of its venerable characteristics. In the words of 
the Preface to the Old Testament, the question is whether the terms 
which some would farther eliminate “ cause a reader no embarrass- 
ment and lead to no misunderstanding.” The general usefulness 
of the Bible is a far higher consideration than the gratification of a 
taste for the antique, and we are pretty certain that the great 


majority of Bible-readers will experience a little “ embarrassment” 
at several of the archaic terms which are allowed to remain. 

(2) The correcting of the translation, either in passages where the 
sense had been entirely missed or where it had been imperfectly 
apprehended, was, of course, the great thing to be attempted in 
revision. If, without impairing the general excellencies of the ver- 
sion as an English classic, the Revisers have succeeded in this task, 
they are entitled to approbation ; nay, if this has been accomplished, 
even to a considerable extent, they still have much merit. 

A detailed examination of the thirty-nine books in order to see 
whether the Revisers have done all that might fairly be expected of 
them cannot be attempted. We must content ourselves with dip- 
ping into their work here and there, and noting a few of the princi- 
pal changes of rendering. We cannot hope to find, perhaps, that 
many original emendations are made, but we are entitled to demand 
that the Revisers shall rnake full use of the labors of the best trans- 
lators and critics up to the present time. The very purpose of the 
revision is to put the people in possession of the well-ascertained 
results of biblical scholarship, so far as these bear upon the transla- 
tion of the Scriptures. 

{a) In many places the Authorized Version has mistaken the mean- 
ing of words and combinations of words, and thus given translations 
which yield no sense or an improper sense. Now, the present state 
of lexicography has enabled the Revisers to correct many of these 
errors, and to give a consistent meaning where there was utter ob- 
scurity or irrelevancy.* 

* A very few instances may be referred to. In Gen. xlix. 10 iinp' gets its proper 
signification, and the sense is at least improved : “ Unto Him shall the obedience of the 
peoples be.” In another passage, not less clearly Messianic (Num. xxiv. 17), those 
who shall be destroyed by the “ star” and “ sceptre” are the “ sons of tumult,” not 
the ‘‘sons of Sheth,”an unhappy identification with the progenitor of the pious ante- 
diluvians. We are not so sure that the Revisers did well in omitting the initial capitals 
in “ Star" and “ Sceptre ,” as they have omitted the capital in the “ Prophet” of Deut. 
xviii. iS. It may be replied, of course, that the office of translator is not that of inter- 
preter. But these are cases in which these offices cannot be entirely divorced, and we 
do not find the revision consistent here. Why should it determine a Messianic appli- 
cation in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah by writing “ Branch” in the places where 
that term is usually understood of Christ: Why, even in Gen. lxix. 10, should we 

have “ Shiloh”? It may be replied that this last is a proper name, and must have a 
capital. But if it does not refer to the town Shiloh it is not obviously a proper name, 
and might have been rendered “ peace” or “ pacificator,” or whatever the meaning is 
taken to be. By the absence of capitals in the cases before us the Revisers leave the 
impression that they do not regard the passages in Num. and Deut. as certainly pre- 
dictions of the Messiah. • 

In Ex. iii. 21 and xi. 2 the Authorized Version gives tjNty the meaning of borrow 
—a meaning which the verb does not appear to have — and thus we are unnecessarily 


There is, perhaps, no part of the Old Testament more difficult to 
translate than the Book of Job. This arises not merely from its 
ocTta^, but from the rapid transition of its impassioned argument, 
from its many references to objects and customs not fa’miliar to us, 
and sometimes from its very sublimity. The charm of this wonder- 
ful book survives in any translation, but how often in our Authorized 
Version are we puzzled with phrases which seem meaningless, nay, 
often thrown off the line of the argument. Our English version is 
not quite as unintelligible as the Septuagint, but it certainly stood 
in need of revision. The Revised Version is as successful, perhaps, 
in removing errors and obscurities as we could reasonably expect, 
though a good many translations still remain doubtful. 

We instinctively turn to the great passage ch. xix. 25-27. No 
violence must be applied to Scripture even to find reference to Him 
whose “ testimony is the spirit of prophecy.” Nothing can justify 
the rendering of the Vulgate (v. 25) : " Et in novissimo die de terra 
surrecturus sum." The Revised Version is neither inore nor less 
Messianic than the Authorized Version. Verse 25 is thus given : 
” But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand up 
at the last upon the earth.” The margin gives “ Vindicator” as 
alternative with “Redeemer.” There is no doubt (and this is the 
main thing) that the term is applied to God, and not to any human 
vindicator. This is clear from the next verse, in which Job declares 
that he shall “ see God ” — see Him who “ shall stand up at the last 
upon the earth.” In Scripture God is often indeed the “ goel ” of 
his people (Ex. vi. 6 ; Is. xliii. 1, etc.). We cannot say that the 
rendering of the next verse is very satisfactory : “ And after my 
skin hath been destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God.” This 
is certainly better than the “ ct rursum circumdabar pclle mea" of the 
Vulgate, and better than the too explicit supplement of the Author- 
ized Version, not to speak of the utter absurdity of the LXX. But 
the margin, we think, is preferable to the text; “After my skin 
hath been destroyed (they have destroyed) this shall be,” etc., 
‘ this” referring either to what precedes or to what follows. To 

called to defend the morality of a transaction in which the Hebrews are divinely directed 
to “ borrow,” when there was neither opportunity nor intention of restoring. The 
Revised Version correctly renders the Kal by “ask,” and in ch. xii. 36 renders the 
Hiphil “ let them have.” I. Sam. i. 28, usually cited in favor of giving the Hiphil as 
“loan,” the Revised Version translates : “Therefore I (Hannah) have also granted 
him (Samuel) to the Lord.” 

In II. Sam. i. 18 the translation — meaningless here — “ He bade them teach the children 
•of Judah the use of the bow,” is corrected so that all is plain : “ He bade them teach 
the children of Judah the song of the bow.” The mistake is not in the lexicography, 
but in a wrong supplement. 



render jikt adverbially, as the text of the Revised Version docs, is 
to take much liberty with it ; and to make it refer to the “ body,” 
with the Authorized Version and American Revisers, is to miss the 
meaning of •” skin,” which by synecdoche is the body. Neither in 
poetiy nor in prose would we speak of the skin being first destroyed 
and then the body. In the next clause we prefer to follow the 
margin and the American Revisers. The preposition is properly ren- 
dered “ without,” as in ch. xi. 15 : “ Without my flesh shall I see 
God.” The body is destroyed, but God will be seen without it. 
We have thus a proper relation between the parallel phrases, and no 
forced interpretation is given to nison. The great amount of careful 
study bestowed upon the Book of Psalms by commentators of vari- 
ous schools- — by Ewald, Hengstenberg, Hupfeld, Delitzsch, Alexan- 
der, Perowne, and many others — would prepare us to expect many 
improvements in the Authorized Version. The keen though loving 
scrutiny to which every word and phrase has been subjected has 
provided much material for amendment of translation ; and, on tlie 
whole, we are not disappointed with the manner in which this 
material has been used. The translation of the Psalms in the Au- 
thorized Version, as in other versions, is much more satisfactory than 
the translation of Job, and hence we do not find so many changes in 
the former as in the latter. But there are changes of considerable 
importance, though clearly a reverent hand has been applied to the 
alteration of words so hallowed by devotional use, so dear to the 
hearts of millions.* 

* In Psalm viii. 5 Elohim is literally rendered : “ Thou hast made him a little lower 
than God.” The rendering of xvi. 2 most will pronounce an improvement, but many 
will still condemn it in part. We read : “ I have said unto the Lord, Thou art my 
Lord ; I have no good beyond thee.” The change in the last clause, in which the 
Authorized Version had followed the Septuagint and Vulgate, is entirely warranted, and 
brings it into harmony with the theme of the Psalm, that God is the portion of the 
saints. The change in the first clause—” I have said,” for “ Thou hast said — is an 
instance in which the ancient versions have been followed in preference to the Masso- 
retes. Those who, like the American Revisers, scarcely admit of departure from the 
Massoretic interpunction, will still prefer “ Thou hast said ” — with its too important 
supplement — “ Oh, my soul !” Without offering any opinion on the general question 
as to the use of the versions in textual criticism, we may say that whatever account is 
given of the form iTIDK, the change of the revision is here entirely warranted. It 
would be exceedingly strange to address one’s soul, as in soliloquy, and not to name it 
in the whole composition (see Psalm xxxi. 15). 

In the Authorized Version Psalm civ. 4 reads : “ Who maketh His angels spirits, and 
His ministers a flaming fire.” The Revised Version has it : “ Who maketh winds His 
messengers, His ministers a flaming fire.” The change here is either too great or too 
little. Not to observe the same rule as to subject and predicate in the two clauses is 
capricious and destroys the parallelism. The Authorized Version is clearly wrong in 
rendering film “ spirits,” as the term is balanced against “ flaming fire.” But if the 


We add only another instance, from Dan. ix. 24-27. In this 
great Messianic passage there are several important changes which, 
quite unnecessarily, we think, tend to impair its Messianic character. 

revision is right in the first member of the parallelism, the second should have been : 
“ And flaming fire His ministers.” It makes matters worse that in Heb. i. 7, where the 
passage is quoted, we have this translation : “ Who maketh His angels winds, and His 
ministers a flame of fire.” It may, of course, be said that this is the proper translation 
of the Greek, which here follows the Septuagint, but that the proper translation of the 
Hebrew is not thereby determined. We would not affirm that every rendering of the 
Septuagint accepted by the New Testament is necessarily perfect ; but here the trans- 
lation is an obvious and natural one ; and, in any case, the Revisers should have dealt 
equally with subject and predicate in the two members of the parallelism. It is ex- 
tremely probable, too, that verse 8 of this Psalm should be regarded as a parenthesis, 
and rendered : “The mountains rose, the valleys sank.” {Ascendant montes, descend- 
ant campi : Vulgate; snbsidunt valles : Hilary of Poicliers.) Though the construction 
is dear enough in the translation preferred by the revision, it hardly gives a tolerable 
meaning to say that the waters “ ascend by the mountains.” The interchange of tenses 
is not fully represented in the revision of this Psalm — perhaps cannot be represented. 

(See interesting and important changes in Psalm lxviii. 16 ; xc. 11 ; cxvi. 11 ; c. 3 ; 
cxxxix. 15, etc., etc.) 

Our space allows reference to a very few more passages of the Old Testament as 
illustrations of important change — generally marked improvement — in translation. 

Isaiah ix. 5 has now received the rendering on which scholars are, in substance, 
agreed : 11 For all the armor of the armed man in the tumult, and the garment rolled in 
blood, shall ever be for burning, for fuel of fire.” We have thus in connection with the 
following verse an excellent sense expressed — viz., that all military accoutrements shall 
be burned up — made a bonfire of — because the “ Prince of Peace” has come. We no 
longer puzzle over an unintelligible context, or seek forced explanations of “ this battle” 
which “shall be with burning and fuel of fire.” The passage is classed with other 
beautiful predictions of the peaceful reign of Messiah. 

Less acceptable to many will be the change necessarily made in ch. xxvii. 8 : “ He 
removed her with His rough blast in the day of the east wind.” The reference is to 
the judgments by which “ the iniquity of Jacob is purged.” The general meaning is 
improved, though tender and beautiful words are gone. But the verb which both Sept- 
uagint and Vulgate here take as riJD, to meditate , cannot mean either meditate or stay. 
The Vulgate in Prov. xxv. 4 renders it “ aufer,” and this is a meaning suitable here. 
In ch. xlix. 5 there is an important change of meaning by preferring the Keri , 1 * 7 , to 
the Cethibh, x 1 ?- The Messiah thus brings Israel as well as the Gentiles to Jehovah, 
and the words “ That Israel be gathered unto thee” supersede “ Though Israel be not 
gathered.” Thus we have congruity of context. 

(See interesting changes in Isaiah xxi. 8 ; 1 . n, etc., etc.) 

Jeremiah xii. 5 reads in the Authorized Version : “ If in the land of peace wherein 
thou trustedst they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan ?” In 
the Revised Version this becomes : " And though in aland of peace thou art secure, yet 
how wilt thou do in the pride of Jordan ?” The mistake of the Authorized Version is 
in the supplement — “ they wearied thee” — taken from the preceding member of the 
antithesis, an instance among many to show that the translators of 1611 have eired in 
introducing too many and too important supplements. Here, as so often, the Revisers 
have returned to the old versions ; for the Septuagint has udi iv yy zipyvyq oov -neKoi&ag ; 
and the Vulgate, more accurately, cam aatem in terra pads secants fneris. We may in 
passing be allowed the remark that the absurd way in which the Septuagint renders 
the first part of the verse (which is not difficult) shows with what caution it should be 


“ To anoint the Most Holy” (v. 24) becomes “ to anoint the most 
holy,” and “ Messiah the Prince” (v. 25) becomes ” the anointed 
one, the prince.” We remark here, as on Num. xxiv. 17, that the 
omission of the capitals will be taken as significant, seeing that in 
other passages of like kind the Messianic reference is proclaimed in 
the use of capitals. Now, there is hardly a passage of the Old Tes- 
tament, we venture to say, which more unmistakably refers to Christ 
than this. It is little to the purpose to reply that the Revisers 
thought proper to assimilate the translation of rrtfn to the numerous 
other passages in which it is rendered “ anointed, ’ for the New 
Testament abundantly shows that “ Messiah” had become a proper 
name and the usual designation of the coming Saviour. These 
verses probably fixed the use of the name Messiah , or the Messiah — 
Christ, or the Christ — -as that of the long-expected Redeemer. Had 
the revision retained the capital, ” Anointed” might have been 
used ; but another change, in the following verse, seems again to 
determine against a Messianic application. We thus read : “ Know 
therefore and discern that from the going forth of the command- 
ment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed one, the 
prince, shall be seven weeks ; and threescore and two weeks it shall 
be built again,” etc. The ” anointed one” thus comes in seven 
weeks (forty-nine years, as generally taken) from the issuing of the 
command to rebuild Jerusalem. If so, “ the anointed one” cannot 
be Christ. Now, the Athnach of the Massoretes is insufficient 
authority for a division of words which makes this verse inconsistent 
with the statement in the following verse, that “ after the threescore 
and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off not to speak of 
the ancient versions, which render verse 25 as the Authorized Ver- 
sion renders : “ Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks 
and threescore and two weeks.” The common explanation, that 
the “ seven weeks” and “ threescore and two weeks” are separately 
mentioned because the seven weeks are the period between the order 
to rebuild the city and the fulfilment of it, and the sixty and two 
weeks the time remaining till Messiah should appear, seems not un- 
satisfactory. It is, at least, more satisfactory than to make the 
“ anointed one” come in seven weeks, while the subsequent three- 

used in correcting the Massoretic text. The influence of the old versions is conspicu- 
ous everywhere — in leading right and in leading wrong. In ch. xxii. 20 the Authorized 
Version follows the Septuagint and Vulgate in the strange rendering : “ Go up to Lebanon 
and cry; and lift up thy voice in Bashan, and cry from the passages” (rd Trepav ri/c 
■da/AcGTiq : ad transc mites). The Revisers rightly take D' 12 y as the mountain of that 
name: “And cry from Abarim.” Luther had anticipated the correction: “ Und 

sc lire ie von Abarim." 

(See Jer. li. 17 ; Ezek. i. 15 ; x. 13 ; xviii. 24 ; xxi. 25-27 ; Dan. iii. 25.) 


score and two are spent in rebuilding Jerusalem. We cannot be 
mistaken in saying that to the general reader this great passage of 
Scripture appears less certainly Messianic than before, and we are 
very confident that there is no good reason why it should be so.'* 

The revision removes, or mitigates, a good many obscurities in the 
minor prophets, but we cannot make references. Hosea, perhaps, 
is most improved. 

(b) There are certain words or expressions — most of them being 
of frequent occurrence — which should be specially adverted to, be- 
cause a proper rendering of the more important of them is a point 
of consequence in a translation. 

“ Wild ox” has properly been substituted for ‘‘ unicorn,” and an 
animal of doubtful authenticity has disappeared from the Bible. 
“ Asherah,” the wooden image of a goddess, probably of Ashtoreth, 
with universal consent takes the place of “grove” (urAcros', lucus), 
an absurd translation ; for in II. Kings xxiii. 6 we read that Josiah 
brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord. It remains 
to be determined whether the term does not sometimes denote the 
goddess herself ; if so, the margin of I. Kings xv. 13 and II. Chron. 
xv. 16 should be preferred to the text. The revision is perhaps 
hardly consistent, for in I. Kings xxi. 7 Asherah is clearly made a 
goddess : “ He set the graven image of Asherah,” etc. 

In the Authorized Version several passages were obscure from not 
distinguishing between “ people” and “ peoples.” (See Ps. lxvii. 5 ; 
Is. lv. 4, etc.) Indeed, the plural is not found in King James’s 
version, except in two passages of the New Testament, where it is 
almost impossible to avoid using it — viz., Rev. x. 11 and xvii. 15. 
The Revisers render D'oy “ peoples,” and thus give the true meaning 
of a number of places which predict the calling of the Gentiles. 
The term D’U is also treated with more discrimination in the Revised 
Version ; and when the idea of profanity or alienation from God is 
not signified, it is rendered “ nations” rather than “ heathen” or 
“ Gentiles.” 

It is certainly a mistake to retain “ God forbid ” as the rendering 
of nVSn, as of /u?) ytvoiro in the New Testament. The phrase is not 
so valuable that it must be preserved in spite of its unnecessary use 

* The Messianic character of this passage seems to be absolutely established by our 
Lord’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. See Luke xix. 41-44, where the re- 
jection and death of the Messiah are connected, as here, with the destruction of the Jew- 
ish state. In Matt. xxiv. 15 “ the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the 
Prophet” (in the verses before us) is expressly mentioned as indicating the nearness of 
the end. If the Revisers will not treat rUTO as a proper name, they should render : 
“ An anointed one, a prince,” which would hardly give a tolerable sense. 



of the divine name, and a more literal translation would be suffi- 
ciently vigorous. Luther’s “ Das sei feme" is not too weak. 

In a people’s book it is also a mistake, we respectfully think, to 
give the transliteration “ Azazel.” (“ To send him away for Azazel 
into the wilderness “ One lot for the Lord and the other lot for 
Azazel,” Lev. xvi. io.) We are pretty sure that the Revisers do not 
intend to favor the opinion that Azazel is the devil, or a demon of 
the pre-Mosaic religion, and yet the word will more readily suggest 
this view than anything else to the ordinary reader. It were better 
to have retained the rendering of the Authorized Version — though it 
cannot be accurate in taking Sint; 1 as a designation of the goat itself 
— than to have done what only entire ignorance of the meaning of 
the word in question would justify. But why not have employed 
“removal,” or “dismissal,” or “complete dismissal”? Every- 
thing points to some such meaning, and while the versions probably 
err in applying the term to the goat itself, they seem to look in the 
right direction for the signification of it. ( crnaitopitaio ?, Sept. ; 
o rpdyo ? avrepyopevo;, Sym. ; 6 rpdyo ; a7to\e\vpevo?, Aq. ; Caper 
Emissarius, Vul. ; Dcr ledige Bock , Luther ; scapegoat, A. V.) 

“Tent of meeting” with advantage replaces “tabernacle of the 
congregation for thus 7ns is distinguished from peb, and refer- 
ence is properly made to the intercourse with God vouchsafed to the 
worshipper : “ There will I meet with thee, and I will commune 
with thee from above the mercy-seat” (Ex. xxv. 22). We cannot 
regard “ meal offering” as a felicitous rendering of nnjo, though 
perhaps as free from objection as any that has been suggested. No 
single word can well describe an offering which consisted of flour, or 
unleavened cakes, or corn in the ear, with oil, frankincense and salt. 

There is much difficulty in distinguishing satisfactorily between 
□ii’X and rxun. Both expiate sin and secure forgiveness. Lev. v. 
10, 16, 18. The “ Asham” is brought unto the Lord “for sin,” 
and in verse 9 of the chapter referred to is expressly called “ a sin- 
offering.” It may be regarded as a species, “sin-offering” being 
generic. One of the marginal renderings of the Revised Version is 
“ for his guilt.” The Vulgate does not make it the designation of 
a kind of sacrifice at all, and the Septuagint seems to hesitate. The 
fact that there are special rites and ceremonies in the case of the 
“ Asham” does not show that it is not a species of sin-offering. We 
cannot find fault with the Revisers in rendering “ guilt-offering,” for 
this keeps to the proper meaning of the word, and “ trespass-offer- 
ing” in no accurate way discriminates the kind of offence for which 
the offering was presented ; though in one instance of it (ch. v. 16) 
there is compensation prescribed. While the “ guilt-offering” is also 


a “ sin-offering,” the Revised Version should have observed con- 
sistency of rendering in Is. liii. io. We have seen no good reason 
advanced for rendering “ Asham” in this one place “ an offering for 
sin.” The ordinary reader is in no danger of being led astray as to 
the nature of Christ’s work by keeping to the translation given in 
Leviticus ; for he there learns that the guilt-offering, as well as the 
sin-offering, is substitutionary and expiatory. Seeing that Jehovah 
is not addressed in the context, we agree as to this passage with 
those who would translate : “ When his soul shall make an offering 
for sin.” But inasmuch as is not a mere periphrasis for Kin, the 
implication is that the tysj itself became the Dbx. 

m* is properly distinguished from nruo (Ps. xl. 7), as the bloody 
sacrifice from the bloodless offering ; though in Gen. iv. 4 the latter 
term is applied, in its etymological sense, to the offering of Abel. 
But the mr is also distinguished from the nbiy, as denoting a sacri- 
fice which was consumed in part only, as were the sin-offering, guilt- 
offering, and thank-offering (Lev. iii. I, iv. 10). On the whole 
there is little fault to be found with the revision in rendering sacri- 
ficial terms. 

The Revised Version has improved upon the Authorized Version 
in the translation of v/si, but it has not done all that was necessary. 
This word denotes ( a ) the breath ; ( b ) the principle of life ( anima ), 
with the appetites which are supposed to inhere therein ; {c) the 
rational soul {animus), with its affections ; {d) the concrete animal, 
or person to whom the “ Nephesh” belongs. In many instances it 
is=self, one’s self. The Authorized Version often uses “ soul ” — 
sometimes by archaism, indeed — -when another rendering should be 
preferred (Lev. vi. 2). ‘‘If a soul sin” is now properly enough 
rendered ‘‘if any one sin.” The like change is made in other 
places. In Hos. ix. 4 “ their bread for their soul ” becomes " their 
bread shall be for their appetite.” Why was not the same change 
made in Prov. vi. 30 : “ We do not despise a thief if he steal to 
satisfy his soul ” ? In many passages which remain unaltered 
“self” might have been substituted for “soul.” See Is. liii. 12 
{In mortem animam sitam : Vul.) ; Jer. xliv. 7 (con. v. 12) ; Prov. 
xxvii. 7. In Deut. iv. 15, Josh, xxiii. 11, ‘‘yourselves” of the 
Authorized Version should have been exchanged for “ lives,” as 
the context seems to show. 

The statement in the Preface to the Revised Version regarding 
the treatment of bnw hardly prepares us for what we actually find in 
the revision. It is said : “ The Revisers therefore in the historical 
narratives have left the rendering ‘ the grave ’ or ‘ the pit ’ in the 
text, with a marginal note, ‘ Hebrew, shcol,’ to indicate that it does 



not signify ‘ the place of burial,’ while in the poetical writings they 
have put most commonly ‘ sheol ’ in the text, and ‘ the grave ’ in 
the margin. In Is. 14, however, where ‘ hell ’ is used in more of its 
original sense and is less liable to be misunderstood . . . the 
Revisers have contented themselves with leaving ‘ hell ’ in the 
text,” etc. Now, the fact is that “ hell ” is found in the text in all 
these passages: Is. v. 14, xiv. 9, 11, 15, xxviii. 15, lvii. 9; Ezek. 
xxxi. 16, 1 7, xxxii. 21, 27 ; Amos ix. 2 ; Jonah ii. 2 ; Hab. ii. 5. 
Whether these and similar passages are to be called poetical, or, as 
the Revisers prefer, “ lofty and impassioned prose, ” I shall not here 
discuss ; but surely there is no good reason why hiKW should be ren- 
dered otherwise than in passages which it is deemed proper to 
exhibit in parallelism. Nor do we understand, again, why the 
transliteration commonly adopted in the “ poetical portions” should 
not occur in Deut. xxxii. 22 and in Ps. lv. 15. If shcol is to be used 
at all, why not in these passages? In Job xxvi. 6 the Authorized 
Version reads : “ Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no 
covering.” Unless the unlearned reader is careful to scan the 
margin, the revision will appear rather difficult to him : “ Sheol is 
naked before him, and Abaddon hath no covering.” In Prov. xv. 

1 1 we have : “ Sheol and Abaddon are before the Lord.” 

There are at least five ways of dealing with this difficult word. 
(a) We may uniformly transliterate, (b) We may, with the Revised 
Version, sometimes use “sheol,” and at other times retain the 
terms used in the Authorized Version. (Jr) With the Authorized 
Version we may translate by “ grave,” “ pit,” or “ hell,” as seems 
nearest the meaning in particular passages. ( d ) Inasmuch as 
“hades” is the New Testament equivalent of “sheol,” to secure 
uniformity in the entire Bible we may use “ hades” throughout. 
(c) We may find some better English equivalent for the Hebrew and 
Greek terms than “ pit,” “ grave,” or “ hell” — say, under -world, 
and, since it is better to translate when we can do so, employ some 
one English equivalent in all cases. If “sheol” is really the 
abode of departed spirits, neither “grave,” nor “ pit,” nor “ hell ” 
(unless this latter be taken in a sense now obsolete), can be an ade- 
quate translation. It is like a contradiction to say that one “ goes 
down to the grave,” and then to explain that this does not signify 
the place of burial.” Apart from this objection, the revision deals 
capriciously with the term, for it uses “ sheol ” in poetry but not in 
prose, and only in prose which it is deemed proper to set forth in 
parallelism. This is altogether too mechanical, and when we examine 
in detail the instances of the several renderings in the Revised Ver- 
sion the result is not satisfactory. “ Under-world ” is too clumsy, 


we fear, even though it were unobjectionable otherwise. It remains 
either that “ sheol ” should always be used in the Old Testament 
and “ hades” in the New Testament, or, as the terms represent the 
same thing, that “hades” — the less unfamiliar of the two — should 
be used throughout. We humbly think that either of these latter 
ways is better than that of the Revisers. 

The most important of all these special terms remains to be 
noticed, the covenant name nirr. This is unquestionably a proper 
name, and is everywhere in Scripture employed as such. “ Moses 
said unto God, When the children of Israel shall say unto me, What 
is his name ? what shall I say unto them ? . . . And God said, 
moreover, unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of 
Israel, The Lord (Jehovah) God of your fathers hath sent me unto 
you : this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all gen- 
erations” (Ex. iii. 13, 15). And so, when Moses goes in to Pharaoh, 
he says to him, “ Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel,” etc. The 
word is construed as a proper name, refusing the article. It is not 
against this view that God first gives his name as rrnx (I am), and 
that the giving is prefaced by the words : “I am that I am.” The 
meaning of the name is thus indicated, but rnrr — the form always 
used, unless where the poetical abbreviation rv occurs — is not the less 
a proper name. It hence follows that to treat the word as an epi- 
thet or title (“ L’Eternel ”), even though the etymological meaning 
be represented, is not allowable. The Revisers have “ thought it 
advisable in regard to the word ‘ Jehovah ’ to follow the usage of 
the Authorized Version, and they have departed from this usage 
only in a few passages, in which the introduction of a proper name 
seemed to be required.” Thus the uvpio ; of the Septuagint, testi- 
fying to Jewish superstition, continues to prevail, and rnrr is still 
represented in our English Bible by Lord. One would think that 
the statement of the history of this substitution should insure its 
condemnation. Why should not we speak of our God by the name 
which He Himself gave us ? He said unto Moses, “ I am Jehovah ; 
and I appeared unto Abraham and Isaac and unto Jacob as God 
Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.” 
The proclamation of this name signalizes a new era in the history of 
redemption ; and yet our Bible, having recorded the fact, makes 
almost no farther mention of the covenant name. In about six 
instances the Authorized Version finds itself obliged to write 
“ Jehovah,” and a few instances are added by the Revised Version. 
What is the justification of this course ? The Preface is silent, but 
we can scarcely err in assigning these reasons : (a) The use of uvpio s' 
by the Septuagint ; [b) the fact that the New Testament accepts the 



term of the Septuagint ; (c) unwillingness to disturb the reverential 
feeling which has gathered around the names of God with which our 
Bible has made us familiar. I know not whether we should add the 
fact that so many other versions have followed the Kcri and the Sep- 
tuagint. The third reason would be entitled to respect were it not 
that reverence would embrace not less certainly the word which God 
Himself has given to us as His “ memorial.” The usus of the 
Septuagint would amount to little unless for the apparent endorsa- 
tion of the New Testament. Now, we cannot here discuss the 
general question as to what extent the acceptance by the New 
Testament of a translation from the Old Testament may be held to 
sanction such translation. Should a translation vitiate the meaning 
in the point on account of which the quotation is made, we can 
hardly suppose that the New Testament would accept it. No 
instance of this kind of quotation can, I think, be established. But 
it will hardly be contested that the New Testament makes citations 
from the Septuagint in which the absolute correctness of the render- 
ing cannot be held to be endorsed. We would not argue that 'ion 
is accurately rendered by oaia because this word occurs in the quota- 
tion from the Septuagint in Acts xiii. 41 ; or that ayyeXoi is the 
equivalent of D'nSx (Heb. ii. 7 ; Ps. viii. 6) ; or that codive; correctly 
renders ’hnn (Acts ii. 23 ; Ps. xviii. 5) ; or that Heb. x. 5, in which 
the Septuagint is followed, is an exact translation of the Old Testa- 
ment words. We cannot therefore conclude that uvpio; is the proper 
representative of mrr, inasmuch as the New Testament does not alter 
it in quoting the Septuagint. Moreover, the argument against 
uvpio; is strengthened by the circumstance that “Adonai,” which 
is correctly rendered by this word, is, by this rendering, confounded 
with “ Jehovah.” Our conclusion therefore is that the proper name 
should be preserved in translation. We cannot, however, regard 
the question whether we should write “ Jehovah,” or “ Jahveh,” or 
“ Yahweh,” or ‘‘ Jahavoh,” as one of very great importance. The 
arguments for the second or third form of the word may be quite 
strong, but the main thing is to have the proper name ; and it may 
well be doubted whether a probably greater precision of translitera- 
tion would, in such a case, compensate for the introduction of an 
unfamiliar form. The whole English-speaking world would acqui- 
esce, we think, in the name Jehovah. 

(e) Grammatical changes. Our knowledge of Hebrew grammar, 
as already said, has been much advanced since the revision of 1611, 
and especially has light been shed upon the doctrine of the tenses. 
The main advances in this latter branch of grammar have indeed 
been recently made. Several points touching the tenses are still 


sub judice — a fact which must not be forgotten when we inquire 
whether the revision has profited as it should by the investigations 
of grammarians.* 

* We note (as specimens) a few instances in which errors in rendering the tenses have 
been corrected, or in which the precise value of the tenses has been better appreciated. 
In Gen. xlix. 27 we have (Revised Version) : “ Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth,” 
instead of (Authorized Version), “ Benjamin shall raven as a wolf.” This is justly re- 
garded as an instance in which the imperfect “ denotes a general attribute of the subject 
of the verb, the relative being omitted.” (Driver.) The propriety of the figure, which 
makes Benjamin a wolf, is thus preserved. In Num. xxiv. 17 Baalam, speaking of the 
“ star” that should come out of Jacob, says (Authorized Version) : “ I shall see Him, 
but not now ; I shall behold Him, but not nigh.” The Revised Version renders the im- 
perfect as undoubtedly it should : “ I see Him, but now now ; I behold Him, but not 
nigh” (see I. Sam. xxi. 15, where the Authorized Version correctly gives the imperfect 

o nxi). 

By giving the pluperfect instead of the perfect in Psalm xxx. 8 the relations of lime 
are properly represented, and something like a contradiction removed. The Author- 
ized Version reads : ‘ 1 Lord, by thy favor thou hast made my mountain to stand strong ; 
thou didst hide thy face and I was troubled.” The Revised Version, “ Thou hadst 
made,” etc., shows that the one condition, as must have been the case, preceded the 
other. On the other hand, the pluperfect rendering of Gen. xii. 1 is changed to the 
perfect. Some, however, will hold that the pluperfect should have been retained in 
this passage. The Revised Version properly renders the article in 2HXn in this verse : 
“ Unto the land that I will shew thee.” 

It is impossible, as has frequently been said, adequately to represent in English the 
interchange of perfect and future, or imperfect, in descriptive passages, especially in 
prophecy. We cannot, therefore, say that the revision does justice in all points to 
the tenses in Is. liii. ; but, clearly, several errors are corrected. How much more 
vivid the description becomes when the vav conv. is recognized in verse 2 : “ For 
he grew up before him,” etc. In verses 3, 7 and 8, also, there are improvements in 
tense-rendering. In the last of these instances the propriety of the change (n£3lb' — 
“ considered ”), depends, of course, upon the exegesis of the clause. Probably the 
Revisers are right in taking jfV (verse g) as impersonal and rendering as plural. 

It cannot be doubled that in Is. lxiii. 1-6 (despite the Massoretes) the Revisers are 
right in keeping the description in the past, and treating the vav in verses 3, 4 and 
6 as conversive of the imperfect. The whole passage is thus of a piece, and becomes 
uncommonly vivid and impressive. We cannot cite more instances to illustrate the 
improvements made by the Revised Version in the tenses ; but we remark that many 
of them are due to the more full recognition of the view of the imperfect now insisted 
on — that it denotes incipiency — as also to more careful observation of the vav conv. 

We respectfully think that a good many instances can be pointed out in which im- 
provement may yet be made in rendering the tenses. The perfect when employed to 
describe the immediate past may be rendered as a present. Thus niiT VOX is ren- 
dered in both revisions “ saith the Lord.” So in II. Sam. xvi. 4 we have a preterite 
rendered : ‘‘ I do obeisance.” Should not Gen. xiv. 22 be rendered in the same way : 
“ I lift up mine hand unto the Lord,” not “ I have lift up,” etc. ? Further precedents 
are found in Num. xi. 5 ; I. Sam. xvii. 10, and in other places. In Gen. xxiii. 11, 13 
we have this use of the perfect, and the Revisers follow the Authorized Version in ren- 
dering as present in verse n, and as past in verse 13. Why this change ? 

The perfect is often used to signify certainty of accomplishment. Now, the Revised 
Version, like its predecessor, is inconsistent in rendering this kind of perfect, sometimes 



There are several other matters of syntax in which we could have 
wished to point out improvements made in the Revised Version, 
especially the use of the article, and of the personal and relative 
pronouns, and of some of the prepositions. We cannot extend this 
part of our subject, but would merely say that in the matters indi- 
cated there is much greater accuracy than in the Authorized Version. 

III. How has tlie English of our Bible been affected by revision? 
This is a question of much importance in the case of a version for 
general use. Any deterioration of the English would be a serious 
evil, for which increased precision in reproducing minute features of 
the originals might be inadequate compensation. 

It is quite superfluous to praise the language of the Authorized 
Version, or to point out in detail its remarkable merits both in 
vocabulary and grammar, especially in the former. Nothing can 
excel its delectus verborum. While the Saxon element predomi- 
nates, it is finely mixed and qualified with words of Latin origin. 
Its language is familiar, but never too familiar. It contains no such 
monstrosities as the following — a specimen of those with which the 
Rhemish New Testament swarms: "Longanimity," “ coinquina- 
tions," " comessations," “ zealatours," “ domcsticals." 

The principles and rules agreed to by the Committee of the Con- 
vocation of Canterbury are judicious and sufficiently conservative. 
They are these : ( a ) “ To introduce as few alterations as possible 
into the text of the Authorized Version consistent with faithful- 
ness. iff) To limit as far as possible the expression of such altera- 
tions to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Ver- 
sions.” There would seem, therefore, to be little risk of excessive 
change in the venerable characteristics of our Bible, which are so 

using the past and sometimes the future. Thus in Is. v. 13 the perfect (the following 
vetses clearly show prediction) is translated by the perfect : “ Therefore my people are 
gone into captivity,” etc. So in Is. ix. 2 the perfect renders the perfect. The same 
in ch. xxv. 8, and elsewhere. Why, then, in Num. xxiv. 17 ; Psalm xxii. 29 ; Is. xi. 9, 
and other places, should the perfect of prediction be rendered by the future ? It seems 
clear that in such cases the perfect should remain in translation, and there is no need 
of changing it into the more prosaic future. The careful reader will hardly be misled 
by keeping to the time of the original, and to change it is to import exegesis into trans- 
lation ; in any case there should be consistency in rendering. 

In like manner there should be more uniformity in rendering the cohortative future 
or imperfect. In Ps. xxxix. 5 and Lam. iii. 28-30, e.g . , to the great advantage of the 
sense, the Authorized Version is corrected in the cohortative. In Ps. xvii. 15 the 
cohortative rendering is set on the margin. But in Ps. xlii. 5, 10, lxi. 5, lxv. 5 the 
cohortative is not recognized. We have not space to discuss the three possible renderings 
in Is. xxxviii. 10 : ‘‘I shall go into the gates of sheol,” “ I must go,” etc., “ Let me 
go,” etc. The arguments in favor of the rendering adopted are not, we think, the 


dear to us. The second rule might even become unnecessarily 

The inquiry, then, is : Have the Revisers carefully and wisely 
observed the rules which they laid down for themselves ? Does the 
Bible as revised exhibit unimpaired the characteristics of simplicity, 
purity, strength, gravity, majesty, which all recognize, honor, and 
love in the English Bible ? Our opinion is that, with slight qualifi- 
cations, this question should be answered in the affirmative. It is 
proof of this that persons may read long passages in either Testa- 
ment, with many alterations, and, unless they have the words of the 
Authorized Version on their memory nothing will strike them as 
new. In the succession of revisions from Tyndale to King James 
the noble features which the earnest and lofty spirit of the martyr- 
translator left upon his work remain unchanged. While in certain 
words and phrases the Authorized Version may be less happy than 
its predecessors, on the whole its language showed much improve- 
ment on the Bishops’ Bible ; and the felicity and dignity which so 
remarkably characterize Tyndale’s translation, in most parts of it, 
maybe said to prevail throughout. We cannot say that the English 
of the late revision is better than that of the Authorized Version ; it 
is sufficient praise that it has not deteriorated in any marked degree, 
and that necessary changes have been so made as not to suggest 
incongruity of style. 

Speaking generally, the Old Testament, unless in certain parts 
which were dark to preceding translators — some of which are still 
imperfectly understood — is less changed than the New Testament. 
This, no doubt, arises largely from the fact that there has been no 
revision of the original Hebrew. The examination which we have 
been able to give this matter would lead us to say that the Old Tes- 
tament Revisers and the New Testament Revisers are about equally 
successful in their English, though the most doubtful specimens of 
English which we happen to have noted are in changes of the New 
Testament. What, e.g., could be more awkward than the follow- 
ing? “ Father, that which thou hast given me, I will that where I 
am they also may be with me” (John xvii. 24). It is no sufficient 
vindication of such constructions that the translation exactly follows 
the original, because the laws of translation do not require a literal- 
ness which shall set grammar and idiom at defiance. Nor does 
fidelity to the Greek demand that verse 2 of this chapter should be 
rendered thus : “ Even as thou gavest Him authority over all flesh, 
that whatsoever thou hast given Him, to them He should give eternal 
life.” Notwithstanding the change of reading in verse 24, the 



Authorized Version might have stood, we venture to think, in both 
these instances. 

In Heb. xi. 5 we have a rather unpleasant conjunction of tenses 
from this same excessive observance of the Greek : “For before his 
translation he hath had witness borne to him that he had been well- 
pleasing unto God.’’ On the other hand, there area good many 
instances in which the grammar of the Authorized Version is cor- 
rected, and a few in which its vocabulary is improved. “ Though 
he were a Son,’’ etc. (Heb. v. 8), properly becomes “ Though he 
was a Son for the case is not hypothetical. “ If any man be a 
worshipper of God and doeth His will ” becomes “ If any man,’’ 
etc., “ and do His will.” “ If we know that He hear us,” etc., is 
now, “ If we know that He heareth us.” Authorized Version : 
“ Whom say ye that I am ?” Revised Version : “ Who say ye that 
I am?” (Matt. xvi. 15.) Authorized Version : “Let each esteem 
other better than themselves Revised Version : “ Each counting 
other better than himself ” (Phil. ii. 3). The Revised Version is not 
always consistent, however, in its corrections, for “ They were 
judged every man according to their works” is unchanged. “ Un- 
seemly” still appears as an adverb in I. Cor. xiii. 5 — “ Doth not 
behave itself unseemly but in this chapter “ love,” the rendering 
of Tyndale and the earlier versions, with advantage replaces the 
Latinizing “charity.” 

The removal of archaisms within certain limits was a necessary 
part of the Revisers’ task in improving our version as a book for the 
people. In the Preface to the Old Testament it is said : “ The 
Revisers have thought it no part of their duty to reduce it (the 
Authorized Version) to conformity with modern usage, and there- 
fore have left untouched all archaisms, whether of language or 
construction, which, though not in familiar use, cause a reader no 
embarrassment and lead to no misunderstanding.” As we have 
already seen, a good many obsolete words and expressions have dis- 
appeared. The American Revisers wished to carry the process of 
removal considerably farther. In our opinion the end of the revis- 
ion would have justified the displacement of some more terms which' 
have ceased to be good English, while several words which the 
American Companies had marked for expulsion are, we think, 
entitled to remain. Our space, however, will not allow illustration. 
On the whole, our conclusion is that the English of our version has 
not in its admirable characteristics been appreciably affected by 
revision, while a number of obvious inaccuracies have been removed. 

IV. Form of Page. The arrangement of the text in paragraphs 
will, on all hands, be regarded as an improvement. The division 


into chapters and verses, although not always made with judgment, 
facilitates reference, and is thus of great practical utility ; but the 
retention of the numerals on the margin of the Revised Version is 
all that is needed, while the continuity of the sense is not impaired 
by the form of the page. The true understanding of Scripture, we 
cannot doubt, has often been hindered by verse-division when there 
is “ no sufficient break in the sense and the function of interpre- 
tation is to some extent involved in a task which, in the New Testa- 
ment, is said to have been performed “ inter equitandum . ” This is 
a serious matter for the ordinary reader, and, though paragraph- 
division also implies in some measure determination of the sense, it 
can seldom express too much of personal opinion on the part of the 
translator. We therefore approve of the arrangement in paragraphs, 
both as freeing Scripture from the aphoristic form given to it by 
verse-division, and as removing an obstacle to correct interpretation. 
It is also well that the adoption of paragraphs entailed the removal 
of the headings of chapters, for in these the province of the exposi- 
tor, which should be kept separate from that of the translator, was 
distinctly entered. 

The arrangement in parallelism of certain books and part of books 
of the Old Testament, and of poetical quotation from the Old Tes- 
tament contained in the New Testament, at once strikes the eye on 
looking into the revised Bible. A leading feature of Hebrew poetry 
is thus exhibited and the apprehension of the meaning facilitated ; 
for, as all writers on hermeneutics inform us, the recognition of 
parallelism is quite essential in the interpretation of the poetry of 
the Bible. 

There are here two points which would fall to be discussed in 
criticising this feature of the revision. We merely advert to them. 
The first relates to the extent to which the parallelistic arrangement 
has been carried. The Revisers tell us that they have not extended 
this arrangement to the prophetical books ; and the reason is that, 
while the language of these books is frequently marked by parallel- 
ism, “ except in purely lyrical passages, it is rather of the nature of 
lofty and impassioned prose.” It is certainly true that elevated 
prose will often take the form of parallelism. Abundant specimens 
are found in the literature of any country. We recognize the diffi- 
culty of drawing the line between the parallelism of poetry and that 
of prose. But the Revisers have not approximated, we think, to a 
correct line. A good part of prophetical utterance is clearly poetry, 
but with the exception of a few passages which are regarded as 
” lyrical,” prophecy is not set forth in parallelism. We venture to 
say that no parts of Scripture are more obviously to be treated as 



poetry than the great section of Isaiah beginning with the fortieth 
chapter, and if the exhibition of parallelism is proper in any part of 
the Old Testament, it is so here. Besides, the selection of “ lyrical 
passages” in the prophets is somewhat arbitrary. Why, e.g . , should 
the ” writing of Hezekiah” in the thirty-ninth chapter of Isaiah 
appear in parallelism, while the odes in chapters 5th and 12th do 
not ? Still farther, we have the incongruity of a large number of 
quotations from the prophecies presented as parallelistic in the New 
Testament, while the same passages have the form of prose in the 
Old Testament ; and thus we are led to conclude either that the two 
sets of Revisers had not the same standard, or that they were not at 
pains to understand each other respecting the matter. (Compare 
Acts ii. 1 7, vii. 42, 49, viii. 32, xv. 16, xxviii. 26 ; Rom. viii. 36, 
ix. 25, x. 19, xi. 26, xiv. 11, xv. 9, etc., with the Old Testament.) 

The second point here involved is the accuracy with which parallel- 
ism is presented when it is set forth. The controversy respecting 
the existence of metrical laws — whether, as Philo and Josephus 
affirm, Hebrew poetry is composed of regular hexametres, pentame- 
tres, trimetre iambics, etc., or whether, as Scaliger, etc., have 
maintained, it is bound by no metrical laws — is too intricate to be 
here entered on. Jebb, summing up the view of Lowth, says : 
” Certain of the Hebrew writings are couched in poetic numbers, 
but the quantity of Hebrew poetry is not only unknown, but admits 
of no investigation by human art or industry, ” etc. (Vide, contra , 
Dr. Briggs’s “ Biblical Study.”) It seems clear, on the one hand, 
that when we speak of trimetres, tetrametres, etc., in Hebrew 
poetry, the terms are not properly applied in their classical sense ; 
and, on the other hand, that there are parallel lines or clauses of 
various rhythm and movement, composed of three, or four, or five 
words, as the case may be. But great liberty is used in varying 
these combinations in the same piece. In Ps. 19, e.g . , we have 
trimetres, tetrametres, and pentametres, if we choose to apply these 
terms. Even in clauses parallel to each other you may not have the 
same numbers. 

The Revisers are not always right in their lines according to any 
view of parallelism. Instances of obvious error are found in Gen. 
xlix. 3 ; Ex. xv. 12 ; Job xl. 7 ; Judges v. 2, 9, 15, 16 ; Ps. xix. 
13, 14, and in a good many other places. Seeing, however, that the 
meaning is but slightly, if at all, marred in any questionable in- 
stances of parallelistic arrangement, and that so many details as to 
the structure of Hebrew poetry are still sub judice , we do not wish to 
make too much of such inaccuracies. There must be no censure of 
the scholarship which would investigate every point, even the 


minutest, in this province ; but in matters where there is no con- 
sensus among scholars — where the Revisers probably differed among 
themselves — we must not peremptorily apply a standard not univer- 
sally accepted. 

V. Theological and Ethical Results. By far the most important 
question respecting revision is that which relates to doctrinal results. 
“ The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning 
God, and what duty God requires of man.” Men will eagerly in- 
quire whether the application of the best scholarship to the more 
accurate rendering of the Word of God makes necessary any modifi- 
cation of the Church’s Creed. Some were in expectation that the 
^dogmas which they disliked would be discredited, or at least have 
their support weakened by revision, while others were in fear as to 
the issue of what seemed to them a hazardous touching of the Ark 
of the Lord. It is unnecessary to say that biblical scholars knew 
beforehand that the hopes of the one class and the fears of the other 
were alike unwarranted. The revision is now before the world, and 
it is apparent to all that no reconstruction of theology becomes 
necessary, and that the moral characteristics of the Bible are pre- 
cisely what they were. But while this is certainly true, it were not 
correct to say that the revision has made no change in any passages 
of theological or ethical significance. 

We may unhesitatingly affirm that the revision, taking it through- 
out, does not in any point leave upon our minds a conception of the 
nature and character of God different from that which the Author- 
ized Version conveys. Several Hebrew words which relate to the 
divine perfections are sometimes rendered by other terms than those 
of the Authorized Version, and there is greater steadiness in render- 
ing ; but there is no change in the general result. The proclama- 
tion of Jehovah’s “ name” in Ex. 34 thus reads in the Revised 
Version : “ The Lord, the Lord, a God full of compassion and 
gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and truth ; keeping 
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and 
that will by no means clear the guilty.” We have several changes : 
Dim is “ compassionate,” not “ merciful ” slow to anger” is 
substituted for “ long-suffering non becomes " mercy,” not “ good- 
ness.” These changes are all, probably, for the better, but no 
person will say that the conception of the character of God given in 
this fundamental passage is at all modified. 

Two or three proof passages for the doctrine of the Trinity are af- 
fected. I. John v. 7 has disappeared. I. Tim. iii. 16 reads : ” He 
who was manifested in the flesh.” In Is. xlviii. 16 ” spirit” is not 
determined as personal, for it is written without a capital. But by 



these changes — even should the last one secure approval — the evi- 
dence for a threefold personality in the Godhead is not impaired. 
It is still as complete as Scripture can make it, and our best writers 
on theology have not been using doubtful texts as proof since text- 
ual criticism has given its verdict upon them. 

Nor is the controversy between Calvinist and Armenian percepti- 
bly affected by any changes of the revision. In Acts ii. 47 we now 
read : “ The Lord added to them day by day those that were being 
saved,” and in Rom. viii. 29 and Eph. i. 4 foreordained ” is pre- 
ferred to “ predestinated but it were ridiculous to allege that our 
doctrine as to the purpose of God is weakened by any such changes. 
Nor can the change in Heb. x. 38 imperil the perseverance of the 
saints, while the proper rendering of I. John ii. 19 gives another text 
in support of it. 

The passages which speak of man’s sinfulness, spiritual impotence, 
and need of redemption, have the same voice which they always had, 
and which they must have in any translation. Jer. xvii. 9 is now 
rendered : “ The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desper- 
ately sick." There is no mitigating of the depravity of man in this 
change ; nor is there in the rendering, “ dead through trespasses and 
sins” (Eph. ii. 1) — if, indeed, “ through” correctly translates the 
dative in this case. The revision cannot be quoted to show that sin 
is only imperfect development, and that by careful self-discipline 
alone man can rise ro the full dignity of his being. 

No part of soteriology needs revision in consequence of any 
change made in text or translation. One or two proofs for the 
divinity of our Lord are removed, but one at least is added ; for in 
Titus ii. 13 we now read : “ Looking for the blessed hope and 
appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” 
But to any reader of Liddon’s Bampton Lectures the adding or sub- 
tracting of one or two explicit testimonies will seem of the least 
possible account in relation to a truth which pervades all Scripture. 
Our conceptions of atonement and intercession also are unaffected. 
The sacrificial ideas have suffered no change. If “ atonement” in 
Rom. v. 11 has properly given way to “ reconciliation,” “ propitia- 
tion” remains in ch. iii. 25, and the prepositions which express or 
imply substitution are rendered as before. 

Many had anticipated the necessity in consequence of revision of 
considerable change in eschatology. Some ignorant persons had 
even hoped that the doctrine of future punishment would not be in 
the new Bible. The only alteration of consequence in the terms 
which relate to man’s future is the introduction of “ sheol ” into the 
Old Testament and “ hades” into the New. We have already ven- 


tured some remarks upon these instances of transliteration. These 
terms seem to bring out more vividly the conception of an 
intermediate state, but they originate no new doctrine, nor do 
they necessitate reconstruction or modification of old doctrines. 
“ Hades” stands clearly before the English reader as the receptacle 
of souls as well as bodies between death and the resurrection. Both 
reward and punishment are there, in measure, dispensed ; and both 
righteous and wicked there await the coming of the Lord to final 
judgment. “ Hades” is distinguished from “ hell ” — this latter 
term being used for “ gehenna. ” It is unnecessary to add that the 
terrible darkness which gathers around the future condition of the 
unsaved is not alleviated by the revision. 

Questions touching the time and sequence of the last things are 
unaffected by any changes of translation now made. The only 
passage which occurs to us in this connection is Acts iii. 19, 20, 
which is rendered as nearly all scholars would render it : “ Repent 
ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so 
that there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the 
Lord ; and that he may send the Christ,” etc. But in all intelligent 
discussion of the Second Advent the correct translation of this pas- 
sage has for some time been recognized on all hands ; though it is 
certainly well that the Authorized Version should be amended, and 
that no doctrine, right or wrong, should even seem to profit by an 
unwarranted rendering. 

The conclusion to which we have come — that no doctrine held by 
the Church of God requires modification in consequence of the 
revision now made — by no means implies that theology will not 
profit by the laborious work of the revision. It is of importance to 
show all readers of the Scriptures that no possible change or emen- 
dation of our English Bible can substantially affect the doctrine of the 
Church of God ; and it is necessary that every mistranslation which 
has lent support to true dogma should be corrected : “ non tali 

If our theological conceptions are not affected in any important 
way by revision, neither have changes involving important ethical 
consequences been made. Several terms of ethical signification are 
more accurately rendered, but we have no new results. The correc- 
tion in Ex. iii. 22 and xii. 35 already referred to has apologetical 
value, but it was never doubtful that honesty and truthfulness are 
inculcated in the Scriptures. We regret that the opinion of the 
American Revisers as to Jer. xx. 7, 10 did not prevail, and that 
‘‘ persuaded ” has not taken the place of “ deceived ” and ‘‘ en- 
ticed.” The rendering still given — “O Lord, thou hast deceived 



me, and I was deceived ” — need not be regarded as a deliberate 
accusing of God, but only as the strong expression of vexation and 
sorrow at the reception which the faithful discharge of duty had 
encountered ; but since nna means persuade as well as deceive, diffi- 
culty should not be imported into the passage by preferring the 
latter rendering, especially as the parallel clause — “ Thou art 
stronger than I, and hast prevailed ’’—corresponds rather to per- 
suading than deceiving. The necessity of adopting another render- 
ing of this verb in verse io should also have told against the meaning 
preferred in verse 7. 

We should like to have said something regarding the margin of 
the Revised Bible, regarding its history, archaeology, etc. — matters 
which must enter into a general estimate of its merits ; but the pa- 
tience of our readers has been already sufficiently taxed, and we 
must close this article. 

No service rendered to the Bible since 1611 can be regarded as 
transcending in importance the work of revision now completed. 
For, while prodigious labor of textual critics and translators — of 
biblical scholarship in all departments— had gone before, and made a 
revision such as this possible, the results of this great and various 
labor are here gathered up and utilized for the benefit of millions of 
people — of whole nations. The work is not perfect, but the Re- 
vised Version will certainly be placed at the head of all translations 
of the Scripture which have yet been made. It will be seen more 
clearly than ever that “ the words of the Lord are pure words ; as 
silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” 

"William Caven. 




T HE visible Church of Christ is not an ideal aggregation of 
individuals, but a community in covenant relations with God, 
an organized society, separated from the world, bound together by 
common obligations, and subject to the government of divinely 
appointed teachers and rulers. This is the doctrine of all the 
Reformed Confessions, and especially of the Westminster standards. 
“ The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the 
Gospel, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the 
true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of our 
Lord Jesus Christ , the house and family of God, out of which there is 
no ordinary possibility of salvation" (Conf. of Faith, 25. 2). This 
definition must be taken as a whole ; and in any argument based 
upon it the second clause, which is explanatory of the first, cannot 
be fairly omitted. The profession which conditions membership in 
the visible Church is not a private and individual transaction ; it 
must be adjudged credible and sealed by baptism. It is the doc- 
trine of all the Reformed churches that neither sacrament may be 
dispensed by any but “ a minister of the Word lawfully ordained ” 
(Conf. of Faith, ch. 27. 4). The notion that one private Christian 
may baptize another is an “ Anabaptistical phrensie.” Jesus Christ 
has erected in this world a kingdom which is his Church ; and to 
this catholic, visible Church he has given the ministry, oracles, and 
ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting the saints, in 
this life, to the end of the world (Form of Gov., 2. 1 ; Conf. of 
Faith, 25. 3). An unorganized kingdom, a disjointed house, an 
ungoverned family, are phrases in which the adjective nullifies the 
noun. Christ said “on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt, 
xvi. 18). A building is not a scattered mass of stones and timber, 
but an orderly structure, with a unity of plan and a subordination of 
parts. That the Church he proposed to build is his visible kingdom 
in the world is evident from the universal precept he immediately 
after gives for the regulation of Christian conduct. “ Tell it to the 



Church , and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen 
man and a publican” (Matt, xviii. 17). 

To confirm and complete these instructions the Saviour proceeds 
to confer upon the officers of the visible Church the power of the 
keys (Matt, xviii. 18, xvi. 19). Whatever interpretation of these 
passages we may adopt, short of that which divests them of all 
meaning, whether we make the keys signify doctrine or discipline, 
or both, they certainly recognize a government in the Church in the 
hands of living men authorized to administer it ; they clearly mark 
the distinction between teacher and taught, ruler and ruled ; and so 
lay the foundation for a multitude of other precepts for the regula- 
tion of the Christian life and the edifying of the body of Christ.* 
The perpetuity of such a government necessarily involves a regular 
succession of authorized Church officers. And this succession must 
be in some sense apostolical , because, as a matter of fact, the apostles 
were the first of the sacred order ; because, in the exercise of their 
plenary authority, they organized under its New Testament form the 
Church to which the Lord “ added such as should be saved be- 
cause the apostles appointed others to preach the Gospel, to admin- 
ister the sacraments, and to bear rule in the kingdom of God ; and 
because their commission to go and preach the Gospel to every 
creature was accompanied with the promise, “ Lo, I am with you 
alway, even to the end of the world.” It was not possible for this 
promise to be fulfilled in the experience of the apostles and first 
preachers of the Gospel. The gates of hell — -i.e., of hades or death 
— did prevail against them as individuals. But their death did not 
annul the promise, because it did not destroy the order of men they 
represent, nor interrupt the exercise of the official functions they 
began ; the visible Church of Christ built through their agency con- 
tinues, and Christ is with them in the person of their successors 
‘‘alway, even unto the end of the world.” Is this High Church- 
ism ? Then were all the Reformers High Churchmen. So also 
were the early Puritans, of both the Presbyterian and the Congrega- 
tional stripe. Even the older Congregationalism of New England 
insisted upon a regular succession of ministers from the apostles. 

* “ The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed 
a government in the hands of Cknrch officers , distinct from the civil magistrate. To these 
officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have 
power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impeni- 
tent, both by the word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners by the minis- 
try of the Gospel and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require” (Conf of 
Faith, 30. 1-2). “ Almighty God hath given power and commandment to his ministers 

to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of 
their sins” (Episcopal Prayer Book). 



Dr. Samuel Hopkins says that the promise of Christ, “ Lo, I am 
with you alway, even to the end of the world,” is a sufficient positive 
proof that such a succession does, in fact, take place, that the apos- 
tolic commission has been transmitted from one to another from 
Christ’s day till now, that there has been no interruption, and will 
not be till the end of time.* He cuts the knot presented by the 
imaginary case of Christians cast upon a desolate island where they 
cannot obtain regularly ordained ministers, by declaring that the 
supposition “ is a begging of the question and a contradiction of 
Christ’s promise.” He affirms that while the promise stands such 
an instance cannot occur, f 

In reply to the objection that an uninterrupted succession of min- 
isters from the apostles must come through the Church of Rome, he 
declares that “ the ministers of that Church were visible ministers of 
Christ, and their visible acts, their ordinations, etc., were valid, 
notwithstanding they were themselves very corrupt and wicked.” 
In this he is in full accord with all the Reformers and with all the 
Protestant theologians since the Reformation. 

Next to the supreme headship of Christ, the grand feature of his 
Church and kingdom, whether visible or invisible, is its corporate 
unity. While the visible Church in its present state is not to be 
accounted identical with the invisible, as though membership in the 
one were the sole and certain condition of membership in the other, 
which is the root of Romanism ; neither, on the other hand, are 
they to be regarded as distinct in their divine purpose, in their chief 
constituent elements, nor in their ultimate destiny. The invisible 
Church being spiritually united to Christ, the visible Church is 
externally united to him for the sake of the other. The two are 
even now largely coextensive, and they will perfectly coincide when 
“ the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather 

* Hopkins’s System of Divinity, vol. ii. , p. 272. 

f We think a better answer to this popular objection would be to admit the possibility 
of such an instance, and insist that the case would be extraordinary. Such persons 
would be excluded by divine providence from the ministry and sacraments of the visible 
Church. What then? Would they be excluded from the kingdom of heaven ? By no 
means. To make the visible Church of Christ identical in this world with the invisible, 
or to insist upon any outward ministry, sacrament, or ordinance as essential to salva- 
tion, is the essence of Romanism. True Protestantism, while it insists that “ out of the 
visible Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation,” recognizes Christ himself 
as the only door, and believes that many besides the penitent thief will be with him in 
Paradise without the benefit of clergy. But, on the other hand, to infer from this that 
the visible Church is not a divine and perpetual institution, or that the ministry and the 
sacraments are not essential to the visible Church, or that any one may wilfully neglect 
the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments without peril to his soul’s salvation, is 
neither genuine Protestantism nor good logic. 



out of his kingdom all things which offend and them which do 
iniquity” (Matt. xiii. 41). It is his field and his kingdom even while 
the tares are growing in it. And therefore the evil which, accord- 
ing to Christ’s prophecy and permission, will exist to the end of 
time in his visible Church, does not warrant us to withdraw from it, 
nor justify us in the attempt to set up a little Church of our own. 

No clearer illustration of the Scripture doctrine on this subject can 
be found than the parable of the vine and its branches, which all 
commentators agree is the symbol of the visible Church. The non- 
fruit-bearing branches, while they mar the beauty, do not destroy 
the visible unity of the vine. Whatever does destroy that unity is 
of human invention, and contrary to the whole design of the Church. 
The divisions among those who profess the true religion, the con- 
solidation of opinions into sects, and of sects into denominations, 
are a great evil in their practical workings, and constitute one chief 
hindrance to the final triumph of the Gospel. The alleged necessity 
for such divisions is of human and not of divine creation. Such 
necessity is nowhere recognized in the New Testament. It is not 
true that the Reformers separated themselves from the visible, his- 
toric Church of Christ. It would have been better every way if they 
could have accomplished the work of reformation in the Church 
without any schism. And this was their desire and their purpose. 
But they were not permitted to do so. They were forcibly expelled, 
anathematized and persecuted for appealing from the Pope to Christ, 
from the commandments of men to the Word of God. Before God 
the Romanists and not the Protestants stand guilty of the schism of 
the Reformation. But are not our mouths stopped from pleading 
this against them by our own voluntary and multiplied divisions? 
Are these divisions justified by the assertion that every Christian 
Church, or union, or association of particular churches is entitled to 
declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifi- 
cations of its ministers and members ? Or are they justified by the 
fact that exclusion from our Church does not shut any one out from 
the kingdom of heaven ? Such reasoning is in the teeth of our own 
definition of the Church, and of our own doctrine as to its design, 
which is the edification of all Christ’s followers, and not merely of a 
chosen few whom we may select. It is the degradation of the 
Church from a divine to a human institution, the substitution of a 
voluntary and limited union or association for the holy catholic 
communion which Christ established. He has declared the terms of 
church membership, and they are simply the terms of salvation. To 
hedge up the door of admission, and to fence his table in such a way 



as to exclude any whom we hope to meet in heaven, is to fortify 
presumption by false reasoning. Are our divisions justified by 
ethnical, national, or social distinctions among men ? The very 
design of the Gospel and of the Church is to override all such dis- 
tinctions, and to make out of all kindreds and conditions one chosen 
generation, one royal priesthood, one peculiar people. On their 
practical side our divisions are a waste of strength. The zeal they 
stimulate is a false fire on God’s altar. The attitude in which they 
present us before the heathen world is a stumbling-block and a 
reproach. They paralyze the power of our protest against the 
usurpations of Rome. The day for eulogizing denominationalism 
as in itself a blessing has gone by. We trust that the time for 
tolerating it without a protest and an effort for a better state of 
things will soon be gone. The pressing obligation of our times is to 
search for the roots of our divisions, not with a view to revive old 
controversies, but to discover the grounds of peace. The political 
complications of past centuries, which identified questions of Church 
government and modes of worship with the conflicts between civil 
liberty and tyranny, have passed away, and their traditional animosi- 
ties are dying out for lack of fuel. There is no reason for perpetuat- 
ing in the land of equal religious freedom the old disputes between 
Cavalier and Roundhead, between the fierce and bloody intolerance 
of Laud and the Stuarts on the one hand, and the no less fierce re- 
sistance of the Solemn League and Covenant on the other. Thanks 
to Puritan and Covenanter, that contest has ended in the triumph of 
liberty for us. The banners of that great war are rotting away in 
ecclesiastical museums, and it is time for its battle-cries to die out in 
the Church. 

The two great obstacles to visible unity among Protestants are the 
mode of baptism and the mode of ordination to the ministry. There 
is a more profound agreement in doctrinal belief among evangelical 
denominations, than some of them seem willing to admit. For our- 
selves, we could accept the Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal 
Church as a summary of the Westminster Confession and Cate- 
chisms. Aside from their views on church government and immer- 
sion, the Baptist Confessions are equally sound in the faith, accord- 
ing to our standard. And, whatever we may think of their omissions, 
we have nothing to object to the positive teaching of the Methodist 
Articles of Religion. We cannot think it a chimerical hope that all 
who accept the Gospel as a supernatural revelation, and believe the 
great facts of the fall of man, the incarnation of the Son of God, and 
the redemption that is in him, could agree in a statement of these 



essential truths, which, with a conceded liberty as to their philosophy 
and the interpretation of it, would become the symbol and the 
banner of a united church. But how can this be done, and of what 
practical use would it be if it were done, while one denomination 
denies the visible church membership of all others and their right 
to participate in the Lord’s Supper, upon the ground that they have 
not been baptized ; and another denomination practically treats the 
ministry of all others as usurpers of the sacred office, and the sacra- 
ments they administer as null and void, upon the ground that they 
are not lawfully ordained ? We say, therefore, that the mode of 
baptism and the mode of ordination are the great obstacles to the 
unity of Protestant Christendom. And they are real, not imaginary 
obstacles. The charity which ignores them, or treats them with 
indifference or contempt, as matters of mere form, is most unchari- 
table. The conscientious convictions of great and good men, and 
of large bodies of Christians, are not to be brushed aside with a sen- 
timental sneer. 

We propose with the utmost frankness, and yet with entire respect 
and fairness toward those with whom we differ, to discuss the ques- 
tion of the mode of ordination. Our contention is about its mode, 
and not about its Scripture authority and obligation. If we leave 
out of view the small and ephemeral sects, and the eccentric individ- 
uals who have denied that the Christian ministry as an order of men 
divinely called and set apart to their work is a perpetual institution 
in the Church, we shall leave intact the great body of those who 
profess the true religion. All the great Protestant denominations — 
Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists 
and Presbyterians — declare in their Confessions and insist in their 
polity that the Christian ministry is of divine appointment and 
essential to the existence of the visible Church. And the great 
body of their adherents regard the ministry, not as a profession or 
business co-ordinate with worldly callings, but as a sacred office 
whose functions are performed in some sense by divine authority, of 
which authority ordination is the symbol and seal. There is not a 
local church in any of these denominations which would receive as 
its pastor a man who would declare that he is not called of God to 
his work, and there are few, if any, who would acknowledge as their 
minister one whose call of God has not been ratified in some formal 
way by the Church. Here, then, is common ground. The agree- 
ment is generic, and wrought into the conscious life of the Church. 
Under the unifying influences and blessed hope of this agreement 
let us discuss our specific differences in an irenical spirit. What is 
ordination ? What are the scriptural forms under which it is to be 



administered ? Who have the right to administer these forms ? 
These three questions cover the whole ground.* 

I. Ordination is “ the public solemn attestation of the judgment 
of the Church that the candidate is called of God to the ministry of 
reconciliation, which attestation authorizes his entrance upon the 
public discharge of his duties” (Hodge’s Polity of the Church, 
p. 144). This definition is broad and simple, and, though it is not 
as comprehensive as some would desire, we think it will be accepted, 
so far as it goes, by all who believe that ordination to the ministry is 
a divine ordinance. 

All Christians who believe that the ministry is a divine institution 
believe also that men are called of God individually to fill the sacred 
office by methods above and beyond the ordinary providential 
arrangements which lead us into other occupations of life. This 
call is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. It must precede 
and is the divine warrant for the investiture of the man with his 
office. Ordination does not constitute the call nor confer the essen- 
tial qualifications for the office ; it assumes and ratifies both. In 
this all Protestants agree. It is taught with special emphasis in the 
Episcopal ordinal. The candidate must declare, before the hands of 
the bishop can be laid upon him, that he thinks and trusts that he is 
“ truly called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this office.” 
“ The Church at all times,” says Haddan, “ and our branch of the 
Church in terms so strong that men sometimes demur to them, has 
required the inward call as well as the outward appointment” (Had- 
dan on Apostolic Succession, p. 52). 

Now, this inward divine call to the ministry is given to men in 

* We propose to answer them out of the Scriptures. But we disavow at the outset 
all sympathy with that mode of argument which professes to find in the Word of God 
an express warrant for all the details of Church government and worship. The New 
Testament is neither a formal confession of faith nor a code of ecclesiastical law, nor a 
formulary for divine worship. In regard to ordination and all other questions of 
Church polity and order we are to be guided, not only by the express words of Script- 
ure, but by “ good and necessary inference from them.” In drawing these inferences 
we are to be guided by apostolic example, and by precedents in the primitive Church 
while under inspired direction and control. Nor is the light of nature and the varying 
needs of human society to be excluded from due influence in the application of Scripture 
principles and examples to the varying conditions of the Church. The life of the 
Church, as to its outward form, is not cast in an iron mould. There are certain things, 
doubtless, in the government of the Church which are jure divino, and therefore not to 
be changed by' men ; but the discretion Christ has given to his Church, and the liberty 
wherewith he has made us free, are also jure divino. To discriminate between the two 
is no easy task, and the difficulty may well make us charitable toward those with whom 
we differ. The arrogance that claims infallibility is more hateful in a Protestant than 
in a Papist. 



two ways, the one immediate, miraculous and extraordinary, the 
other mediate, gracious and ordinary. The immediate and miracu- 
lous call attests itself in the heart of the recipient, and is attested to 
others by supernatural signs. In such cases there is no need of any 
formal ordination. The mode of the call and the infallible proofs 
which accompany its announcement leave nothing to be submitted 
to the judgment of the Church. To those who present such evi- 
dences of their commission it need only be said, “ We know that 
thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles 
which thou doest except God be with him.” Hence the apostles 
were not ordained in the technical sense of the word. They were 
appointed to office and miraculously endowed by Christ himself. 
They were commissioned to organize the Church under its New 
Testament form, and it was neither necessary nor practicable to 
submit their claims to its judgment. The case of Paul is an appar- 
ent, but only an apparent, exception to this remark, as we shall 
show hereafter. We desire now to emphasize the observation that 
the apostles were not ordamed. Where it is said in the Authorized 
Version “He ordained twelve whom he called apostles” (Mark iii. 
14), the word in the original is enofitjev^ which the Revised Version 
correctly renders “He appointed . ” Ordination, in the technical 
sense, is appropriate only to those whose call to the ministry is 
through the ordinary operations of the' Holy Spirit, unaccompanied 
by any direct revelation, and unattested by any miraculous signs. 
In such cases a man is not competent to judge for himself, nor can 
he enforce his judgment upon others. He believes and professes 
that he is called of God, but the credibility of that profession is to 
be submitted to the impartial judgment of others, just as a pri- 
vate person’s profession of faith in Christ is to be examined and 
approved before he can be recognized as a member of the visible 
Church. And just as “ baptism is the sign and seal of our regenera- 
tion and engrafting into Christ, and that even to infants,” so also 
ordination is the sign and seal of a man’s divine call to the ministry. 
It is not the divine call, but the ratification of it. It does not 
confer the essential qualifications and the divine authority of the 
office ; this is the Romish doctrine, which all Protestant confessions 
repudiate, and none more explicitly than the Episcopal ordinal. If 
the man has not the natural ability and the human learning neces- 
sary for his work, and, above all, if he has not the call of the Holy 
Spirit in his heart, the hands of the ordainers can no more confer 
these things upon him than the sprinkling of consecrated water on 
the person of the baptized can regenerate the soul. But, then, it 
does not follow from this that the mere formal authority to enter 



upon his work is all that one who is called of God receives in his 
ordination. All divine ordinances include in the words and the fact 
of their institution a promise of special divine blessings to those who 
rightly use them. Ordination is not a sacrament according to our 
definition of the word. Nevertheless, as the sacraments become ‘ ‘ ef- 
fectual means of salvation by the blessing of Christ and the work- 
ing of the Holy Spirit in them that by faith receive them,” so we 
believe that ordination is in the same way an effectual means of 
preparing the minister of Christ for the work to which he is called.*' 
God honors his own ordinance ; in the very act of ordination, in 
answer to prayer, and with the laying on of hands, he bestows not 
only the formal investiture of the office, but the inward and spiritual 
grace needful for the performance of its duties. What is there un- 
reasonable, unscriptural, or contrary to Christian experience in this 
belief? To denounce it as a superstition, to reject it with a sneer 
at the alleged impossibility of divine grace coming to us through the 
laying on of hands by sinful men like ourselves, is the very essence 
of rationalism in the evil sense of the word. It limits the Almighty 
to methods which we think we can understand and explain ; it 
empties the sacraments of all divine efficacy, and in its logical con- 
clusions shuts out everything supernatural from the economy of 
divine grace. In regard to what is conferred in ordination the case 
of Timothy is not exceptional, but typical. Paul exhorts him not 
to “ neglect the gift that is in thee which was given thee by proph- 
ecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ”(I. Tim. iv. 14). 
And again, “ that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by 
the putting on of my hands” (II. Tim. i. 6). What is the x<*P lff M a 
tov deov which was bestowed upon Timothy in his ordination ? 
We must believe that it was something more and better than the 
external authority for entering upon his office, something in addi- 
tion to and confirmatory of his prophetic appointment to the minis- 
try ; for it was in him as a personal possession and experience. 
Moreover, it was something to be stirred up and increased by use. 
He could not stir up his divine call nor his official authority ; these 
were fixed facts, incapable of increase or diminution. The only 
thing to which the apostle’s words can be applied without doing 
violence to the laws of language is the special grace of God for the 

* We are constrained to differ on this point from many Presbyterian writers, who in 
their zeal for orthodoxy lean backward. Thus Dr. Smythe, in his Presbytery and 
Prelacy, p. 171, says : “ Ordination is nothing more than induction to the sacred 
office. It is not the medium of any communicated character, official authority, or actual 
grace. No such meaning or interpretation is sanctioned by the Word of God, and it is 
therefore superstitious.” This is good dogmatism, but poor exegesis. 




performance of his official duties given to him in the act of ordina- 
tion. Is it going beyond the recorded facts to call this charism 
“ the grace of orders,” in the same sense that the benefits received 
in baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be called “ saciamental 
grace” ? While we avoid the popish error which links God’s spirit- 
ual gifts mechanically with the mere performance of outward cere- 
monies, we should be equally careful to avoid the greater because 
the more unbelieving heresy, which makes the performance of his 
appointed ordinances a mere outward form, and divorces them from 
his efficacious blessing upon those who rightly use them. 

Into the question whether any one who believes himself to be 
called to and qualified for the work of the ministry may enter upon 
it without being ordained, we will not enter at length. The doc- 
trine which sanctions such irregularities is new in the Presbyterian 
Church, and even among Congregationalists. It belongs rather to 
the ifrownists, Anabaptists and Separatists, against whose opinions 
the whole history of Puritanism is a standing protest. The passage 
we have quoted from Samuel Hopkins fairly represents the views of 
the New England Fathers. Lay evangelism has no standing in our 
Presbyterian system. The Westminster standards expressly declare 
that every minister of the Word must be ” lawfully ordained.” 
The history of the Church is against it, and we fail to see any war- 
rant for it in Scripture, or in the present needs of the Church and 
the world. If a man claims to have a direct and extraordinary call 
from God to preach or to administer the sacraments, let him show 
his credentials, as prophets and apostles did, by miraculous signs. 
If he cannot do this let him submit his claims and qualifications to 
the judgment of his brethren. The refusal to do so is a mark, not of 
superior piety, but of extraordinary presumption. For a full discus- 
sion of this subject, and a complete answer to the arguments in 
favor of lay evangelism as they are used in our day, we refer our 
readers to the “ Jus Divinum Evangclici Ministcrii,” a treatise pub- 
lished by the Provincial Synod of London in 1654. The learned 
authors of this remarkable book declare, and we fully endorse the 
declaration, the opinion that men who suppose themselves called 
and qualified may enter. upon the work of the ministry on their 
own responsibility, is “a highway to all disorder and confusion, ” 
an “ inlet to errors and heresies,” and is “ insufferable in a well- 
ordered Christian community.” These are the views of the men 
who framed our Presbyterian standards and fought the battle for 
evangelical truth and Christian liberty against formalism and spir- 
itual tyranny. The movements of our time, by which such views 
are repudiated and denounced, have no right to the exclusive title 



of “evangelistic.” So far as they produce any permanent re- 
sults, their tendency and effect are to educate the masses away from 
the house of God and from His ordinances, and to aggravate the 
evils they are zealously but not wisely intended to cure. 

II. In regard to the outward form of ordination there is much 
confusion in the minds of ordinary readers of the New Testament, 
owing to the fact that our translators have rendered several Greek 
words of various signification by the one English word ordain. The 
Revised Version does not entirely correct this infelicity. We can- 
not enter into a critical discussion of all the Scripture passages which 
bear upon our subject, nor can we review the conflicting theories 
founded upon them. It will be sufficient to state our conclusions. The 
essential elements of the act of ordination are prayer and the laying 
on of hands, with the avowed intention of setting apart the candidate 
to the work of the ministry as one who , after due examination, is be- 
lieved to be called of God to that office. Fasting is no part 6f the 
ceremony. It may or may not precede or follow, in the same way 
that a sermon may or may not be preached on the occasion. As a 
part of the ordaining act the fast would necessarily be a very brief 
one, and hardly worthy of the name. To construe the one passage 
where fasting is mentioned as having preceded the praying and lay- 
ing on of hands (Acts xiii. 2, 3) into the theory that fasting is an 
essential part of ordination, is to generalize upon a very small induc- 
tion of facts. In this case the fasting was begun before there was 
any intention to ordain any one. Moreover, it is doubtful whether 
this was a case of ordination to the ministry at all, while in other 
cases in regard to which there is no question fasting is not men- 

Though prayer and the laying on of hands are essential parts of 
the ordaining act, it does not follow that every ceremony in which 
one or both of them is employed is an ordination to the ministry. 
This is sufficiently obvious in regard to prayer ; why should it not 
be equally obvious in regard to the other ? The laying on of hands 
was used in the primitive church on various occasions and for various 
purposes. It was often no more than an expressive gesture accom- 
panying a benediction. When Christ laid his hands on the children 
and blessed them he certainly did not ordain them to the ministry. 
Neither did the apostles ordain every one on whom they laid hands. 
The significant act was in many cases the outward sign of conferring 
the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. In others it was the exter- 
nal form under which a miracle was wrought. Why, then, should it 
be hastily inferred that when Ananias laid his hands on Saul (Acts 
ix. 17) it had anything to do with his appointment to the apostle- 



ship ? It is not called an ordination, and the record does not war- 
rant our connecting it with anything but the restoration of the apos- 
tle’s sight. The passage in Acts xiii. 1-5 to which we have just 
referred is more difficult. If, as many think, it describes Paul’s 
ordination to the apostleship, his case was exceptional ; he is the 
only apostle who was formally ordained. And the exception can be 
accounted for only on the ground that his former attitude toward 
the Church required a special authentication of his call to himself 
and others. But it is not easy to see what additional force his own 
open vision of the risen Saviour, his direct appointment as a chosen 
vessel to carry Christ’s name to the Gentiles, and his power to work 
miracles, could derive from the laying on of the hands of prophets 
and teachers. We prefer the interpretation which makes this setting 
apart of Paul and Barnabas not an ordination to the apostleship, or 
to any office in the Church, but their consecration to a missionary 
work, which was so important in itself, and marked such a distinct 
epoch in the history of Christianity, as to warrant the use of the 
form of ordination. This is the view adopted by Haddan and other 
High Church Episcopal writers. 

Election by the people of a particular church to the pastoral office 
is no part of ordination to the Christian ministry ; still less is ordina- 
tion a mere adjunct following and consummating such an election. 
At this point there is a vital distinction between the Presbyterian 
and the Independent theory, growing, necessarily, out of the two 
views as to the constitution of the visible Church.* 

According to our theory, men are not ordained to the pastoral 
office in a particular congregation, nor to the ministry of any de- 
nomination of Christians, but to the ministry of the Word and sacra- 
ments in the visible, catholic Church. Election to the pastoral 
office is simply one of the evidences by which a man’s fitness for the 
work of the ministry is certified ; it is no more a part of his ordina- 

* According to the independent theory, “ besides particular churches , there is not 
instituted by Christ any church more extensive and catholic, entrusted with power for 
the administration of his ordinances, or the execution of any authority in his name.” 
From which it follows that “ the essence of the call of a pastor, teacher, or elder into 
office consists in the election of the Church, together with his acceptance of it and sepa- 
ration by fasting and prayer, and those who are so chosen, though not set apart by im- 
position of hands, are rightly constituted ministers of Christ, in whose name ana 
authority they exercise the ministry to them so committed.” (See Savoy Declaration, 
Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, vol. iii., pp. 371, 375 ; also John Owens’s Nature of a 
Gospel Church, Works, vol. xvi.) The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, 
declares that “ the visible Church is also catholic or universal under the Gospel,” and 
that “ to this catholic, visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles and ordi- 
nances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life unto the end of 
the world ” (Conf. of Faith, ch. 25, 2. 3). 



tion than his examination in Greek or Hebrew. It is one thing to 
make a gold ring, and another thing to appropriate it to a bride’s 
finger. It is one thing to make a man a minister in the Church of 
Christ, and another to instal him pastor over a particular flock.* 
Scripture examples do not sustain the position that election by 
the people is any part of ordination. All that the one hundred and 
twenty disciples did in Acts i. was to appoint two and set them 
before the Lord. Indeed, it is by no means certain the people did 
this. They in verse 24 most naturally refers to the apostles. But it 
was God who chose Matthias by means of the lot. There was no 
ordination in his case. “The lot fell upon Matthias; and he was 
numbered with the eleven apostles.’’ In the case of the deacons in 
Acts vi. the people looked out seven men of honest report, and the 
apostles “ prayed and laid their hands on them,’’ thus ordaining 
them to their office. Nor is there in any other Scripture example 
the least intimation that popular election is either of the essence or 
any part of the form of ordination. If the theory of independency 
could be sustained it would logically follow that a man ordained to 
the ministry is a minister only in that particular charge to which he 
is chosen, and is not authorized to exercise his office in any other 
place or among any other people, and that he would cease to be a 
minister at all as soon as the people’s call and his own acceptance of 
it were reversed by the dissolution of his pastoral relation. But this 
is contrary to all Scriptures, as well as to all Christian usage. God 
has set ministers in the same church with apostles and prophets 
(I. Cor. xlii. 28). They are called “ ministers of God,’’ “ministers 
of Christ,’’ “ ministers of the New Testament,’’ “ ambassadors of 
Christ.’’ To make either their investiture or their tenure of office 
dependent upon the changing preferences and whims of a particular 
congregation is utterly to destroy their relation to Christ and to his 
universal Church. And, besides all this, the theory that electiornby 
the people is essential either to the calling or ordination of a minis- 
ter, if consistently carried out, would prevent the extension of the 
Church to heathen lands. The whole work of missions, from the 
days of Paul and Barnabas till now, is a standing protest against it. 
The practice of our Independent brethren is in this respect better 

* “ Presbyters are not by ordination confined unto places, but unto functions. They 
who theoretically hold the contrary do not act out their own doctrine. They do not 
ordain a man over again every time he changes his pastoral charge. They change their 
location many times without being reordained. All this, I presume, they would not do 
if their persuasion were as strict as their words pretend ” (Hooker, Ecc. Polity, Book 
V., 80). 



than their creed. They ordain home and foreign missionaries with- 
out popular election. 

III. We come now to the vexed question, Who have a right to 
ordain ? 

We need spend little time to show that this right does not belong 
to private church members, individually or collectively. No local 
congregation of believers is authorized to ordain its own minister. 
We admit, of course, as do the highest of High Churchmen, that all 
Church power is conferred upon and resides in the whole body of 
the Church. We do not believe in any hierarchy aside from the 
royal priesthood of believers. But it does not follow from this that 
Church power is to be exercised by the people indiscriminately.* 

Both the examples and the precepts of the Scriptures teach plainly 
that ministers are to be ordained by men already in the sacred office. 
All the instructions on the subject in the New Testament are con- 
tained in the Pastoral Epistles, which are addressed, not to churches, 
but to their office-bearers. The common sense of mankind as shown 
in civil affairs is against the reasoning which infers the right of the 
people to ordain from the admitted fact that all Church power 
resides in the body of the Church. According to the American 
theory of government all political power resides in the people, and 
is to be exercised for their benefit ; and this is virtually the theory 
of the British Constitution as illustrated in its history since the 
expulsion of the Stuarts. But it does not follow that every citizen, 
or every society, or assembly of citizens, can take on themselves at 
pleasure the administration of the government, or even the inaugu- 
ration of one whom they have chosen to office. The citizens of a 
New England town have no right to administer the oath of office to 
the town constable. 

Assuming that ordination to the ministry is to be performed by 
thc^se already in office, and its obvious corollary that it belongs not 
to temporary but to permanent officers of the Church, it remains to 
decide what permanent officers possess this right. On this question 
the whole Protestant world is divided, the Episcopal denomination 
standing on one side, and all other denominations on the other. 
The question is one of vital importance. It underlies the integrity 
of the visible Church, the validity of its sacraments, and the divine 
authority of its ministers. It comes home to the conscience of every 

* The powers to bind and to loose, to preach the Word and administer the sacraments, 
reside in the whole body and are to be exercised for the benefit of the whole body ; but 
they are delegated to Christian ministers as the organs and representatives of the body, 
for which reason, though the powers belong essentially to them, it does not follow that 
all have a right to exercise them” (Goulburn’s Holy Catholic Church, p. 151). 



one who claims to be a minister of Christ and a steward of the mys- 
teries of God. It behooves him to know whether he is an usurper 
of the sacred office, or whether he is lawfully ordained to it accord- 
ing to the design and ordinance of the supreme head of the Church. 
Let us endeavor distinctly to understand the issue — to strip it of 
all extraneous questions, and consider it in its naked simplicity. 
So far as Presbyterians are concerned, if we may take our standards 
as a fair expression of our views, there is no dispute with our Epis- 
copal brethren : (i) In regard to the existence of the visible Church 
as a divine and perpetual institution in the world ; nor as to its 
design as the representative of the unity of the mystical body of 
Christ ; nor as to the duty of all Christians to labor and pray for 
that visible unity ; nor as to the sin of schism or unnecessary divi- 
sions ; nor as to the ultimate destiny of the visible Church to be 
conformed to and identical with the invisible. We are as gen- 
uine “ Churchmen” as they are, and we respectfully challenge their 
exclusive right to the title. (2) Neither is there any dispute be- 
tween us about the infallible inspiration and plenary authority of 
the apostles as Christ’s agents in the organization and establishment 
of the Church to be the pillar and ground of the truth to the end of 
time ; nor about the fact that in fulfilment of Christ’s promise there 
has been an unbroken succession from the apostles of an order of 
men called and authorized to rule the Church, preach the Word, 
and administer the sacraments ; nor about the necessity of ordina- 
tion by prayer and the laying on of hands as the formal conference 
and seal of ministerial authority. (3) Neither do we differ in regard 
to the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, to be administered only 
by ministers of the Word lawfully ordained, as the outward signs, 
seals, and conveyance of inward and spiritual grace. Doubtless 
there are many in the Presbyterian Church who hold the mere 
remembrance theory of the Lord’s Supper, and regard baptism as 
only an outward form of consecration. And so also there are in the 
Episcopal Church all shades of opinion, from the baldest Zwinglian- 
ism to the opus operatum and mechanical theory of Romanism. But 
the Presbyterian and Episcopal standards are at one on this subject. 
There is just as much of the doctrine of sacramental grace in the 
one as in the other. They both teach that the sacraments are 
"effectual means of salvation,” that the Lord’s Supper is ‘‘the 
communion of the body and blood of Christ,” and that baptism is 
‘‘ the sign and seal of regeneration and engrafting into Christ, and 
that even to infants.” 

(4) Nor do we differ as to the authority of the Church in the exer- 
cise of a wise discretion, and in conformity to the circumstances of 



different times and countries, to decree rites and ceremonies, pro- 
vided nothing be done contrary to Scripture, and nothing aside from 
Scripture is insisted upon as necessary to salvation ; * nor as to the 
right of the Church upon the same conditions to confer special func- 
tions upon her office bearers as human expedients for her better 
government, such as the duties assigned to synodical missionaries, 
missionary superintendents, moderators of ecclesiastical assemblies, 
whether permanent or temporary, and overseers of large districts or 
dioceses of the Church including more than one local congregation. 

What, then, is the contention between us ? Simply this : they 
maintain that diocesan bishops are, according to Scripture, a distinct 
order of Church rulers, superior in authority to presbyters ; that 
they are, in an exclusive sense, the official successors of the apostles, 
and that to them belongs the sole right to ordain men to the minis- 
try of the Word and the sacraments. Against which we maintain 
that a regular succession of ministers from the apostles does not in- 
volve in any sense the perpetuity of the apostolic office ; that there 
is no official distinction in the New Testament between a presbyter 
and a bishop, and that the right to ordain men to the ministry is not 
vested by divine authority in any order of church officers distinct 
from or superior to presbyters. f 

In the discussion of these points let us guard ourselves against 
“the fatal imposture and force of words,’’ which so often runs 
through and confuses this controversy. Writers on both sides use 
terms in a double sense. This is the case with the phrase “ apos- 
tolic succession,” which may mean a succession of apostles or a suc- 
cession of ministers from the apostles. In the former sense we 
reject, but in the latter sense we sincerely believe the doctrine of 
apostolic succession. The same is true of the word bishop. We 
would have no difficulty in accepting Cyprian’s favorite saying, 
“ Ecclcsia cst in episcopo," because at the same time we believe that 
other famous saying of Jerome, “ Idem ergo Presbyter qui cpiscopus," 
presbyter and bishop being the generic and synonymous terms by 
which the Scripture describes the authority Christ has established in 
his Church for its edification and oversight. In the same way we 

* “ Those who refuse to use the light of nature in the circumstantials of religion, and 
restrict Presbyterian order and worship and life to the express words of Scripture, have 
abandoned Presbyterian principles and gone over to the side of the separating Anabap- 
tists and Brownists of the seventeenth century” (Briggs’s American Presbyterianism, 
ch. i, p. ii.) 

t “ The main and essential distinction between Episcopalians and Presbyterians 
relates to the order of bishops as separate from and superior to both elders and deacons, 
vested with peculiar power and authority not belonging to either of them” (Banner- 
man’s Church of Christ, vol. ii., p. 211). 



could adopt such statements as these: * “ that the ministry is de- 
rived from Christ, and is perpetuated through episcopal ordination 
that “ the apostles ordained a bishop over each newly-erected 
church that “ the order of bishops is essential to the outward 
being of the Church.” It would not be fair, however, for us to 
make such statements without qualification, because we use the 
word bishop in its Scripture sense of overseer, and as synonymous 
with presbyter, whereas our Episcopal friends use the same word 
under the imposed and non-scriptural sense of diocesan bishop, as 
descriptive of an order of officers entirely distinct from presbyters. 
There are some statements skilfully dovetailed into .those above 
quoted which we cannot accept in any sense. We admit, of course, 
that the apostles were bishops, because the greater includes the less, 
and the exercise of all Church power was vested in them. Peter 
and John expressly call themselves presbyters, elders, or bishops- — in 
the Scripture sense of t\ie words. But we deny that “ the apostolate 
was in substance an episcopate the episcopal functions of the 
apostles were a very small part of their office. We deny that “ their 
miraculous powers belonged to their persons and were separable 
from their office the powers to work miracles were part of their 
endowments for their official work, as their commission expressly 
declares ; they were, as Paul calls them, “ the signs of an apostle.” 
The apostolic office was extraordinary and temporary. The argu- 
ment fora succession in that office, derived from the fact that others 
besides the original twelve and Paul are sometimes called apostles in 
Scripture, is hardly worthy of serious attention. When both Paul 
and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts xiv. 14 the title of the 
principal person may be given to his companion simply by way of 
courteous accommodation, which is confirmed by the fact that 
Barnabas, though often mentioned, is never called an apostle by 
himself. Or the title may be applied to both, not in its technical 
and distinctive sense, but in the primary and wider sense of mission- 
aries, as it is often used in other places. But suppose we admit, in 
the absence of all Scripture proof, that Barnabas had been ap- 
pointed to the apostleship to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death 
of James, as Matthias was chosen to fill the vacancy caused by the 
apostasy of Judas ; this does not prove that the apostleship was to 
be perpetuated in the Church ; it simply proves that the apostolic 
college was kept full during the time, and in the performance of the 
special work for which it was instituted. Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) 
and those whom Paul sent to the church of Corinth (II. Cor. viii. 23) 

* Blunt’s Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 150. 



are called in the original apostles {ontoarokoi eKxkrjOiGov), which our 
translators have properly rendered “messengers of the churches. ’’ 
Were the}’ all apostles in the official sense ? You might as well con- 
tend that every old man, or npea fivTEpoi, is a presbyter, and every 
ayysXoz a celestial angel. Some, indeed, have claimed Epaphrodi- 
tus as belonging to the apostolic college ; but none, so far as we 
know, have conferred this honor upon the messengers sent by Paul 
to Corinth. Timothy and Titus, for whom the office is claimed, are 
nowhere in the New Testament called apostles in any sense. 

When the end for which any office is instituted is accomplished, 
and the mode by which men have been inducted into it is no longer 
in use, and the attestations of its authority can no longer be pro- 
duced, the conclusion that the office itself has ceased to exist is irre- 
sistible. The application of these simple tests to the question before 
us is easy. The apostles all received their appointment directly. 
The original twelve were neither chosen nor ordained by men ; 
Christ made them apostles. Paul claims in this respect to be on an 
equality with the others. “ Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by 
man, but by Jesus Christ” (Gal. i. i). “ The lot fell upon Matthias ; 

and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts i. 26). There 
was no human election or ordination in his case. It was an essential 
if not the chief design of the apostles’ office that they should be 
eye-witnesses of the resurrection. This is the avowed end for which 
Matthias was chosen. To qualify Paul for the same office the risen 
Saviour appeared to him on the way to Damascus ; and hence, when 
he would vindicate his title to the apostleship, he says, “ Am I not 
an apostle ? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ ?” (I. Cor. ix. 1.) 
It was an essential qualification of the apostles for their office that 
they should be endowed with power to work miracles. Hence Taul 
says, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you” 
(II. Cor. xii. 12). Now, we submit that it is a manifest absurdity to 
say that men who have not received the direct appointment of an 
apostle, and are not qualified to perform the specific work of an 
apostle, and are not able to show the signs of an apostle, are in- 
vested by divine light with the apostolic office.* 

* Dr. Lightfoot, present Bishop of Durham, in the essay on the Christian Ministry 
appended to’his Commentary on Philippians, says : “ The opinion hazarded by Theo- 
doret and adopted by many later writers, that the same officers in the Church who were 
first called apostles came afterward to be designated as bishops, is baseless. . . . The 
apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, held no local office. He was essentially, as 
his name denotes, a missionary moving about from place to place. ... It is not there- 
fore to the apostle that we must look for the prototype of the bishop.” 

“ When I see bishops immediately sent of God infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, 
travelling to the remotest kingdom to preach the Gospel in their own language to the 



But we have no disposition to dispute about words ; still less 
would we take advantage of any inconsistency in the use of them by 
our opponents. In this regard we do not think full justice has been 
done by anti-Episcopal writers to the advocates of apostolic succes- 
sion. It is not always easy to understand them. But we are war- 
ranted in saying that none of them advocate a succession of apostles 
in the full meaning of the title. Thus even Blunt, though he affirms 
that the “ apostolate was in substance an episcopate,” admits imme- 
diately afterward that “ their extraordinary powers and the apostolate 
itself ceased with the death of the apostles.”* * We might ask, If 
the apostolate ceased, did not the substance of it cease also ? But 
let that pass. The learned annotator comes back again to his orig- 
inal position that the substance of the apostolate is an episcopate, 
meaning, of course, the diocesan episcopate. He affirms that “ the 
apostles ordained a bishop over each newly organized church, and 
these chief pastors or bishops inherited the powers of ordination 
government and Church censures which were the ordinary parts of 
the apostolic office.” Now, this statement just as it stands is good 
Presbyterian doctrine, provided the word bishop is used in its Script- 
ure sense as interchangeable with presbyter. But this is not the 
author’s meaning. By bishops he means an order of men distinct 
from and superior to presbyters, inheriting from the apostles, by 
right of official succession, the exclusive possession of the power of 
ordination and government in the Church. And this is the head 
and front of the contention between us. Here we join issue in the 
question of fact. 

Is it not remarkable, and a strong presumption against the Epis- 
copal theory, that the power of ordination is never once mentioned 
in the instructions Christ gave to the apostles, never once asserted 
by the apostles themselves, and that not one clear and indisputable 
instance of its exercise by apostles alone is mentioned in Scripture ? 
If they were in the intention of Christ and in their own conscious- 
ness of their position the head of a long succession of ordainers, a 
succession on whose integrity depends the very existence of the 
visible Church, the validity of the sacraments and the right of men 
to administer them, is it credible that the chief thing for which this 
succession was established should never be mentioned by Christ or 
by themselves ? 

This, however, is only a negative argument. The Saviour and 

infidel nations, and confirming their doctrine by undoubted miracles, I shall believe 
them to be the apostles’ true successors in the apostolic office” (James Owen’s Plea 
for Scripture Ordination, p. 56). 

* Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 530. 



his apostles may have said and done many things not recorded in 
Scripture. We are willing and anxious to accept all facts, whether 
recorded in Scripture or in other histories, and all good and neces- 
sary inferences from them. There are only two grounds on which 
the claims of diocesan Episcopacy can be sustained : (i) a succession, 
in fact, of an order of men superior in office to presbyters, having 
the exclusive right to ordain, established by the apostles themselves ; 
and (2) the custom of the Church , introduced after the death of the 
apostles and without their sanction. Most Episcopal writers 
strangely confound these two grounds, and play fast and loose be- 
tween them. Aside from apostolic example and precept, the long- 
continued custom of the Church is not binding upon any man’s con- 
science except upon the theory which co-ordinates tradition with 
Scripture and claims infallibility for the Church. If, indeed, the 
custom could be traced back to the days of the apostles, the infer- 
ence would be irresistible that it has their sanction. But if there is 
any interval, however short, between their death and its establish- 
ment, its divine and binding authority is gone. An interval of one 
year breaks the chain as effectually as though it were a thousand 
years. The testimony of the Fathers is contradictory. Jerome is in 
open conflict with Cyril. If our opponents may reject the witness of 
the one, we have the same right to reject the witness of the other.* 
It is admitted on all hands that if we leave out the apostles the 
only two classes of permanent church officers mentioned in Scripture 
are bishops and deacons (Phil. i. 1). If by bishops we meant only 
diocesan bishops, then there were no presbyters. If both diocesan 
bishops and presbyters are included under the one title, then bishops 
and presbyters are not two distinct orders. Our Episcopal friends 
stand at this point between Scylla and Charybdis. But let us not 
exult over them, for we stand on a similar position in regard to 
ruling elders. While they claim three orders in the ministry, we 
claim three orders of church officers. f (See Form of Gov., 3. 2.) 
But to justify this enumeration we must make ruling elders a sub- 
ordinate class in the one order of presbyters, or else we must admit 
that their office rests upon the custom of the Church under the gen- 

* It is not pretended that there is any explicit patristic testimony for the existence of 
diocesan episcopacy until at least a century after the death of the apostles. The apos- 
tolic fathers bring little aid and comfort to our opponents. The recently discovered 
“ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” and the Epistles of Clement do not help them. 
The New Testament is the only extant book which tells us historically what was done 
in the Church in the lifetime of the apostles. 

f The ordinary and perpetual officers of the Church are bishops or pastors, the repre- 
sentatives of the people usually styled ruling elders, and deacons (Form of Gov., 3. 2). 



cral Scripture description of helps and governments * (I. Cor. xii. 28). 
If the distinction between presbyters and diocesan bishops is based 
upon the same broad ground, we have no dispute with those who 
insist upon it. They only distinguish upward, while we distinguish 

It is admitted by all candid writers on the subject that the words 
presbyter and bishop, as used in the New Testament, are synony- 
mous and interchangeable. Some of the ablest Episcopal writers 
candidly acknowledge this. "f* “ The one thing needful,” says Mr. 

Haddan, than whom we know of no abler or more consistent advo- 
cate on his side of the question, “ to make the truth clear is simply 
the straightforward acceptance of what is manifestly the plain usage 
of the New Testament — viz., the employment of arc lento tv o? and 
npea ( 3 vrepo? as equivalent terms (Haddan on Apostolical Succes- 
sion, p. 74). The same author further admits that to make the 
presbytery who laid hands on Timothy an assembly of diocesan 
bishops, or to insist that the Ephesian elders whom Paul declared to 
be bishops by the appointment of the Holy Ghost were bishops in 
the Episcopal sense of the word, “ are desperate devices” (Ibid., 
p. 75). We fully agree with this author that there is no Scripture 
authority for the office of diocesan bishop, unless it can be shown 
that it is the perpetuation of the apostolate. Diocesan bishops are 
either successors of the apostles, or else their authority rests solely 

* Our Scripture defence of the distinction between ruling and teaching elders or 
presbyters rests upon one text of doubtful interpretation. I. Tim. v. 17 : “ Let the 
elders which rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in 
the Word and doctrine.” This one text does not prove that at the time when the epistle 
was written there was a distinction between ruling and teaching elder. The 01 Komuvreg 
h and the ol icaXu f srpoeoruTec may refer to the same persons. Let the elders who 
rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially because they labor in word and 
doctrine. Under all forms of church government the preacher is also a ruler. “ Re- 
member them who have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God ” 
(Heb. xiii. 7). “ That elders alone are mentioned in connection with the government and 

presidency of the churches is a clear proof that they were the only spiritual overseers 
known to the people. But whether the passage is available to prove that there was in 
the apostles’ days a formal distinction among those who bore the common name of 
presbyter, as that some were set apart to the work of both teaching and ruling, while 
others were merely rulers, is not expressly said, and has often been disputed as well by 
Presbyterian and Independent writers as by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians” (Fair- 
bairn’s Pastoral Epistles, p. 213). 

t On this point Bishop Lightfoot is very explicit. “ It is a fact now generally recog- 
nized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament 
the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘ bishop ’ (err'icricoTroe) and ‘ elder,’ or 
‘ presbyter ’ {Tcpeopbrepog).” After elaborately proving this he adds : “ Nor is it only 
in the apostolic writings that this identity is found. St. Clement of Rome wrote probably 
in the last decade of the first century, and in his language the terms are still convert- 
ible” (Lightfoot on Epistle to Philippians, p. 95). 



on the custom of the Church without scriptural or apostolic sanc- 

The best representative of Episcopacy', and the most generally 
accepted authority in its defence, is Richard Hooker. To this day 
he retains the respect of all parties in the Episcopal Church. We 
freely accord to him the title of “ judicious,” and have an unbounded 
admiration for his exposition of that law whose seat is the bosom of 
God, and whose voice is the harmony of the world. His whole 
argument on the questfon before us is summed up in the following 
passage : 

“ The form of regiment established by the apostles at first was that the laity or people 
should be subject unto a college of ecclesiastical persons which were in every city estab- 
lished for that purpose. These in their writings they term, sometimes presbyters, 
sometimes bishops. To take one church out of a number fora pattern of what the rest 
were— the presbyters of Ephesus, as it is in the history of their departure from the 
Apostle Paul at Milelum, are said to have wept abundantly all, which speech doth show 
them to have been many. And by the apostles’ exhortation it may appear that they 
had not each his several flock to feed, but were in common appointed to feed that one 
flock, the church at Ephesus, for which cause the phrase of his speech is this attendite 
gregi, ‘ look all to that one flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.’ 
These persons ecclesiastical being termed as then presbyters and bishops both, were all 
subject unto Paul, as to an higher governor appointed of God to be over them. But 
forasmuch as the apostles could not themselves be present in all churches, and as 
St. Paul foretold the presbyters at Ephesus that there ‘ would rise up from among their 
own selves men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them ; ’ there did grow 
in short time among the governors of each church those emulations, strifes, and con- 
tentions whereof there could be no sufficient remedy provided , except according unto the 
order of Jerusalem already begun, some one was endued with episcopal authority over 
the rest, which one, being resident, might keep them in order, and have pre-eminence or 
principality in those things wherein the equality of many agents was the cause of dis- 
order and trouble. This one president or governor among the rest had his known 
authority established a long time before that settled difference of name and title took 
place whereby such alone were called bishops. And therefore in the book of St. John’s 
Revelation they are entitled angels” (Hooker, Ecc. Pol., Book 7, ch. 5, sec. 1, 2). 

Now, this is the best that even Hooker can do, and subsequent 
writers on the same side have only reiterated his arguments with the 
variations of the kaleidoscope. The first thing that must strike a 
candid reader of this passage is the circularity of its reasoning. It 
draws absolute conclusions from premises which are, at best, but 
probable, and then it doubles back the conclusions to strengthen the 
premises. The author agrees at the outset to stake the whole ques- 
tion of the Scripture authority for diocesan bishops upon the case of 
Timothy and the church at Ephesus. This is candid and fair ; if 
Timothy was not a diocesan bishop and a successor of the apostles 
resident at Ephesus, there are none such in Scripture. But the 
argument has not proceeded tu r o steps before James is lugged in, 
with the bald assertion, as though it needed no proof, that the order 



of diocesan Episcopacy was already established in his person in Jeru- 
salem before Timothy’s time. Why, then, did not our author begin 
at Jerusalem ? If the Episcopacy of James, aside from his apostle- 
ship, is so indisputable that it can be adduced without proof to 
establish an antecedent probability that Timothy was made diocesan 
at Ephesus, why not rest the whole discussion upon James and the 
church at Jerusalem? Any one who reads the record in Acts xv. 
will see that it is less available for diocesan Episcopacy than what we 
know of Timothy. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and 
this first link is very weak. We admit, of course, that James and all 
the other apostles, whether in Jerusalem or anywhere else, had all 
the authority that has ever been claimed for diocesan bishops ; but 
how does this prove that they transmitted this authority to a succes- 
sion of such bishops ? 

Again, our author asserts that the only remedy for schismatical 
contentions among presbyters is their subordination to bishops 
superior in rank and authority to themselves. But where is the 
proof of this? Not in the New Testament; such a remedy for 
schism is nowhere mentioned. Not in history, for, as a matter of 
fact, the establishment of diocesan Episcopacy has not brought peace 
and unity. There are to-day, to say nothing of the past, in the 
bosom of the Episcopal Church diversities of doctrine and practice 
quite as broad, and controversies quite as bitter, and the speaking of 
things quite as perverse, as any that prevail among other denomina- 
tions of Christians. Moreover, there is a fatal superfluity in this 
argument of the “ only remedy.” It proves too much for the con- 
tentment of our Episcopal brethren. It constantly points and urges 
toward Rome. For, if the only remedy for contention among 
presbyters is a diocesan bishop, what remedy is there for strife 
among bishops, whom all history proves to be men of like passions, 
but archbishops ; and what cure for the strife of archbishops but 
patriarchs ; and who shall keep the patriarchs in order but the 
Pope ? This plea of the only remedy runs through and unifies the 
whole system of the Roman hierarchy ; if it is good in its first appli- 
cation, is it equally good in the last ? and thus, as Milton says, it is 
” the stirrup by which Antichrist mounts into the saddle.” * 

But to our mind the conclusive proof that this is not the only 
remedy, and not a divinely appointed remedy at all, is the consider- 
ation that Paul did not apply it in his treatment of recorded cases. 
Take, for example, the desperate case of the church at Corinth. It 
is nothing to the purpose to say that Paul was the bishop of that 

* Milton, Smectymnuus. 


112 - 

church, and kept the presbyters in order by his authority, because 
the apostle was not resident at Corinth, and manifestly did not fulfil 
the conditions upon which the efficacy of the remedy depends, 
according to Hooker’s statement. And, besides, no one denies that 
the apostles exercised all the functions ever claimed for diocesan 
bishops. Nor do we deny that these episcopal functions were trans- 
mitted from them to others. The question in dispute is, To whom 
were they transmitted ? How did Paul expect schismatical conten- 
tions among presbyters would be suppressed after he was gone ? So 
far as the New Testament informs us, he left the whole responsibil- 
ity with the presbyters themselves. In the Epistles to the Corinthi- 
ans, which are full of rebuke against division and strife, there is not 
a word about diocesan bishops. In the case of Ephesus, of which we 
have an explicit account, the remedy prescribed by the apostle is 
entirely inconsistent with the present or prospective existence of any 
higher order than presbyters in the permanent ministry of the Church. 

The apostle meets the elders of that church at Miletus. He 
informs them that after his departure — and this was his final depart- 
ure-contentions and strifes would arise among them which in his 
absence could not be controlled by his authority. Now, if ever, is 
the time to apply, or at least to prescribe, the “only remedy.’’ 
Timothy, his supposed successor in office, was present (Acts xx. 4). 
Does the apostle point to him and say, “ Here is my successor in 
office, appointed to rule over you as the only remedy for schismatical 
contentions’’ ? No ! but he says to the presbyters in the presence 
of Timothy, “ Take heed to yourselves and to the flock over which 
the Holy Giiost has made you bishops.’’ So the Revised New 
Testament honestly renders the passage, substituting the word 
bishop for overseers , which was the weak evasion of King James’s 
translators. Now, is this conceivable upon the supposition that 
Timothy was at this very time diocesan of the church at Ephesus ? 
What ! lay the whole episcopal function upon the presbyters in the 
presence of their own bishop, and declare that this is the appoint- 
ment of the Holy Ghost ? If it be answered that Timothy was made 
sole Bishop of Ephesus at some time after this interview, this starts 
a fresh crop of questions and difficulties. Where is the proof that 
Timothy was ever made bishop at Ephesus ? The subscription to 
the Second Epistle to Timothy— made by an unknown hand at an 
uncertain time (which the Revised Version properly expunges) — and 
the testimony of Eusebius in the third century, are nothing to the 
purpose. Hooker quotes them ; but, even omitting the distinction 
between a Scripture and a diocesan bishop, we cannot accept them 
as of any value in this argument, for our inquest is for Scripture 



proof. Is there any such proof in I. Tim. i. 3 : “ As I besought 
thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that 
thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” ? 
Omitting the question whether these words imply either an ordina- 
tion or a charge to the office of diocesan bishop, which they cer- 
tainly do not, they utterly break down as a proof in their historic 
application to the case before us. Notwithstanding all that has been 
said to the contrary, we venture to affirm that the Epistle to Tim- 
othy was written before the interview of Paul with the elders at 
Ephesus, and must be interpreted in accordance with what was then 
said and done. We need not go outside of the record to quote 
authorities on this point. Paul’s own words are conclusive. He 
says : “ Behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone 
preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" (Acts xx. 
25). He knew it. Was he mistaken in what he so confidently 
asserted ? Would he have affirmed this so positively if, indeed, it 
had been, as some presume to say, only an “ expectation” and “ a 
human inference from the danger which he knew to be before 
him” ?* We cannot think so.f Paul was never at Ephesus again. 
Timothy went away with him on this occasion. His beseeching 
Timothy to remain there must be referred to some previous depart- 
ure, when he went not to Jerusalem, but into Macedonia, and must 
be interpreted in consistency with the fact that in his last interview 
with the presbyters of that church he declared that the Holy Ghost 
had made them bishops over that flock. To assume without proof 
that this appointment of the Holy Ghost was afterward revoked as 
an insufficient remedy for the evils which Paul foresaw and to which 
he applied it, is, to say the least, a poor way to expound the Script- 
ures. Nor are these facts in any way modified by the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, written, as all the critics agree, by Paul subsequently to 
the interview at Miletus. In that epistle Timothy’s name is not 
mentioned. Is this consistent with the supposition that he was sole 
bishop there ? Can any intelligent Episcopalian conceive of an 
inspired apostle, or any one who believes in diocesan Episcopacy and 
understands the courtesies which prevail among gentlemen, writing 

* Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, vol. ii. , p. 2241. 

f “ Some suppose that this was merely an opinion or surmise of Paul without divine 
communication or direction ; but this idea was expressed in verse 22 by the phrase ‘ not 
knowing the things which shall befall me there,’ i.e., in Jerusalem, and it surely cannot 
be assumed that knowing and not knowing mean precisely the same thing. If not 
knowing there denotes that it was hidden from him and remained uncertain, then I know 
must mean that it had been revealed in some way and was certain. To attach the same 
sense to directly opposite expressions, in the same context, and in reference to the same 
subject, is to nullify the use of language” (Alexander on the Acts, in loco). 




a letter of religious instruction to the Diocese of Long Island, with- 
out even mentioning the name of his honored head, Bishop Little- 
john ? We think not. 

From Timothy and the church at Ephesus Hooker makes a wide 
step and a long link in his chain of reasoning to the angels of the 
seven churches of Asia. Let us admit at once that by the angels 
are meant, not the churches themselves, as many commentators 
plausibly contend, but individual men and presiding officers. Does 
this prove that they were diocesan bishops ? What ! seven diocesan 
bishops in the little province of Asia, and each of them having only 
one church in his diocese? Why, they appear to us to be nothing 
more than pastors and permanent moderators of parochial presby- 
teries. And with all the magnifying glasses we can put on, without 
the risk of destroying our eyesight, we cannot make them look like 
anything larger. 

We are compelled, therefore, as many of the most eminent bishops 
and scholars of the Episcopal Church have been, to adopt Jerome’s 
account of the historic origin and prevalence of Episcopacy. 

“ As, therefore, presbyters do know that the custom of the Church makes them subject 
to the bishop which is set over them, so let bishops know that custom , rather than the 
truth of any ordinance of the Lord’s, rnaketh them greater than the rest, and that with 
common advice they ought to govern the Church” (Jerome on the Epistle to Titus, 
quoted by Hooker, Ecc. Pol., Book 7, 5. 8).* 

But now suppose we admit, for the sake of the argument, that 
diocesan bishops are of divine appointment, and that the apostolic 
office is perpetuated in them ; does it follow that they have the 
exclusive right to ordain men to the Christian ministry ? By no 
means. This is a separate doctrine, and requires a distinct proof. 
How meagre and inconclusive is the alleged proof appears in the fact 
that the passage of Scripture most frequently and dogmatically in- 
sisted upon as conveying such power is the saying of Christ : “ As 
my Father hath sent me, so send I you." “ This," says Mr. Blunt, 
‘‘ is the great charter bestowing the exclusive power of ordination 
upon bishops" (Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 543). But surely there 
must be a large reading between the lines to see any such exclusive 
power in this charter. The learned author might as well say it 

* Hooker labors hard to reconcile this testimony with the doctrine of jure divino 
Episcopacy. But that he does not succeed to the satisfaction of the most zealous Epis- 
copalians is evident from the fact that many of their later writers take the opposite 
course and impeach the credibility of Jerome as a witness. Thus Haddan says, ” The 
sweeping implications of Jerome in the teeth of the practice of the universal Church 
only throw discredit up 07 i himself as dealing in over-wide statements" (Apostolic Suc- 
cession, p. 120). This is setting us a very bad example of disrespect for the testimony 
of the Fathers. 



bestows upon bishops the exclusive power to preach the Gospel or 
administer the sacraments. The fact is, that it simply asserts their 
divine mission, without specifying any of the purposes for which 
they were sent. The whole reasoning is in a vicious circle. It 
begins with the promise of demonstration, and ends with begging 
the question. The only sources from which we can ascertain what 
the apostles were empowered to do are the instructions given to 
them by our Lord, their own claims as to their authority, and the 
inspired record of their doings. In their recorded instructions there 
is not one word about ordination ; so far as the New Testament 
informs us, they never claimed the power of ordination as belonging 
exclusively to themselves ; while they performed the duties of the 
apostolate, the exercise of this power was not confined exclusively to 
them ; and therefore, even if we admit that the apostolic office is 
perpetuated in the Church, there is no Scripture ground for includ- 
ing the power of ordination among its peculiar functions. 

Admitting that Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops, and as 
such successors of the apostles, there is nothing to show that they 
had the exclusive right to ordain in their respective dioceses. The 
avowed purpose for which Timothy was left in Ephesus was not to 
ordain, but to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” 
than what Paul had taught. The injunction to “ lay hands sud- 
denly on no man,’’ admitting that this refers to ordination to the 
ministry, might be addressed to any presbyter upon the supposition 
that presbyters had the right to ordain, and therefore is no proof 
that presbyters were excluded from the exercise of that right. The 
words addressed to Titus, “ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain 
elders in every city’’ (Tit. i. 5), are entirely consistent with the 
theory that Titus was presiding elder or moderator of presbytery in 
Crete, and possessed the power of ordination in common with the 
other members of the body over which he presided. It is consistent 
also with the theory held by many that he was a temporary agent or 
representative of Paul, performing a special work in the organization 
of the church in Crete, and that the authority with which he was 
clothed ceased when that work was done.* Inasmuch as he is never 

* Hooker says : " The apostles sometimes gave their episcopal powers unto others 
to exercise as agents only in their stead and as it were by commission from them. 
Thus Titus and thus Timothy at the first , though afterward endued with apostolical 
power of their own” (Ecc. Pol., Book 7, ch. 4). But where is the proof that they were 
afterward endued with apostolical power of their own? “It appeareth,” says our 
author, “ in those subscriptions which are set upon the Epistle to Titus and the second 
to Timothy, and by Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history.” These subscriptions, be- 
sides being uninspired additions of uncertain date and authorship, do not affirm that 



called an apostle, and there is no record of his appointment to that 
office, the exercise of the right to ordain does not prove that he was 
an apostle ; it rather proves that the power of ordination was con- 
ferred upon those who were not apostles. 

These views are abundantly confirmed by all the examples of ordi- 
nation found in the New Testament. 

If the transaction recorded in Acts xiii. 1-3 was an ordination to 
office, it is conclusive against the Episcopal theory ; because, while 
one of the ordained was the apostle to the Gentiles, the ordainers 
were simply “ prophets and teachers and if they might ordain an 
apostle and those miraculously called to office, much more might 
they do the same for presbyters and those whose call is in the ordi- 
nary way. 

If, on the other hand, we agree with Haddan and other High 
Church Episcopal writers, that the separation of Barnabas and Saul 
for the work to which the Holy Ghost had called them was not an 
ordination, in the technical sense, but only an extraordinary 
solemnity upon an extraordinary occasion,* * — and we think this is 
the true interpretation — this does not affect the force and applica- 
tion of the example as against the Episcopal theory ; for the form 
of that extraordinary solemnity was the form of ordination. They 
who had the right to use these acts of the ordination ceremony upon 
an extraordinary occasion and upon extraordinary subjects, had 
a fortiori the right to use them upon ordinary occasions and upon 
such ordinary subjects as a presbyter. He who is authorized to 
sprinkle water upon a child in the name of the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, has the right to administer the sacrament of bap- 
tism. The right to participate by the laying on of hands in an ordi- 
nation service implies and includes the power to ordain. And this 
brings us to the crucial case — the ordination of Timothy. There is 
no question that he was ordained in the fullest sense of the word, 
and that the ceremony is described in these two passages : “ Neg- 
lect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, 
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (I. Tim. iv. 14) ; 
‘‘ Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of 
God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands” (II. Tim. i. 6). 
These two statements describe the same transaction, f and they can 

Titus and Timothy were apostles or diocesan bishops, but simply bishops, which we all 
admit. The testimony of Eusebius can hardly be accepted as a Scripture proof. “ It 
is the conception of a later age which represents Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, and 
Titus as Bishop of Crete. St. Paul’s own language implies that the position they held 
was temporary” (Bishop Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry, p. 199). 

* Haddan on Apostolic Succession, p. 84. 

f We are aware that this is a disputed point, and that even as good a commentator as 



be reconciled only by admitting that the apostle and the presbytery 
were equal participants in Timothy’s ordination, and had equal 
authority to perform the ceremony. In the one passage the apostle 
does not mention himself at all ; it was done by the hands of the 
presbytery. In the other the presbytery is not mentioned ; it was 
done by the hands of the apostle. Each statement is complete in 
itself as a record of the transaction. What is the legitimate infer- 
ence ? That the hands of the presbytery and the hands of the 
apostle were, in regard to the power of ordination, interchangeable. 
Paul acted as the presiding officer of presbytery, and yet as one of 
the presbyters, with whom he held the ordinary power in common ; 
for he, with Peter and John, was also an elder. How is the force of 
this inference contravened ? The witnesses are not agreed. One 
says that by the presbytery is not meant the college of presbyters, 
but the abstract office which was potentially and by eminent domain 
in the apostles. But the word rtpes ftvrtpiov is never used in this 
abstract sense ; and, besides, how was it possible for an office to lay 
Jiands on Timothy ? Another says the first passage ought to be 
reconstructed thus : “ Neglect not the gift that is in thee by the 
prophecy of presbytery with the laying on of hands — i.c . , the apos- 
tles’ hands.” So Bengal renders it. According to this interpreta- 
tion, the presbytery took no part whatever in the ordination. This 
method not only does violence to the grammatical structure of this 
passage, but makes all Scripture a nose of wax in the hand of 
destructive criticism. So far as we know, no respectable defender 
of Episcopacy has adopted it. Another makes the presbytery a 
college of diocesan bishops, which Haddan calls a “ desperate 
device.” But, desperate as it is, Blunt claims for it the highest 
patristic authority, and the testimony of “ all the best commenta- 
tors, ancient and modern.” * * And he adds, ” The utmost that can 
be claimed for the passage is that priests sometimes imposed their 
hands, together with an apostle or bishop.” But why “some- 
times” ? If it was lawful once under apostolic sanction, why not 
always ? And why may we not reverse the statement and say the 
apostles sometimes imposed their hands with the presbytery ? The 
one assumption is just as valid as the other. Perhaps the strongest 

Bishop Ellicott favors the opinion that the first passage describes Timothy’s ordination 
as a presbyter, which is supposed to have taken place at Lystra, while the second pas- 
sage describes his consecration as a bishop, which is alleged to have been done at 
Ephesus. This interpretation is quite as good for our argument as the other. But it 
rests upon mere conjecture, and is not generally accepted, even by Episcopal writers. 

* By this sweeping assumption he excludes Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, and a host 
more of Episcopal writers from the category of the best commentators. (Annotated 
Prayer-Book, p. 543.) 



Episcopal interpretation is based upon the alleged distinction be- 
tween the prepositions employed in the two passages under consider- 
ation. The gift that was in Timothy is said to have been imparted 
by ( 3 ia), the laying on of the apostles’ hands, and with (pier a), the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery. This is supposed to indi- 
cate that the imposition of the apostles’ hands was the instrumental 
cause of the divine charism, while the imposition of the hands of the 
^presbytery was simply an accompaniment which added nothing to the 
efficacy of the ordination, and was designed only to express the 
approbation and concurrence of the presbyters.* 

This distinction, we venture to say, is purely imaginary, and 
would never have been invented but for the necessities of this argu- 
ment. The two prepositions are constantly used in the New Testa- 
ment as synonymous. f 

Even if we admit this imaginary distinction between by and with 
it avails nothing in the argument for episcopacy, except upon the 
theory of a literal and mechanical transmission of grace through the 
hands of men. All Protestants hold that the charism is but another 
name for God’s blessing, accompanying his own ordinance and 
responding to the prayer of his saints ; and therefore we cannot see 
that it makes a particle of difference whether we say it comes by or 
with any outward human act. If both the apostle and the presby- 
tery laid their hands on Timothy by divine appointment in fulfil- 
ment of prophecy, and with the accompaniment of a divine blessing, 
their ordaining power was equal. If this is not a good and neces- 
sary inference, why do our Episcopal brethren insist upon the 
injunction to Timothy, “ Lay hands suddenly on no man” (I. Tim. 
v. 22), as a proof that he had power to ordain, and was therefore a 
bishop ? According to the reasoning which denies this power to the 
presbyters who laid hands on him, he might lay his hands on others 
and still have no ordaining power and be no bishop according to their 
theory. But we do not care to push these inconsistencies further 

* See Annotated Prayer-Hook, p. 543 ; Hobart’s Festivals and Fasts, p. 25, and Had- 
dan on Apostolic Succession, p. 84. 

f “ Many signs and wonders were done by ( 61a ) the apostles” (Acts ii. 43). “ And 

when they (Paul and Barnabas) were come, and had gathered the church together, they 
rehearsed all that God had done with (peed) them” (Acts xiv. 27). Are we to infer that 
the miracles of the day of Pentecost were wrought by the apostles as instrumental 
causes, while the works of Paul and Barnabas were done simply with their approbation 
and concurrence ? The two prepositions are used interchangeably in one of the pas. 
sages between which they are supposed to mark so important a distinction. “ The gift 
that is in thee, which was given thee by (did) prophecy with (/rrrd) the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery.” Was the prophecy the instrumental cause of Timothy’s char- 
ism ? What, then, becomes of the theory that the instrumental cause was the laying on 
of the apostles’ hands ? 



It seems to us that the only consistent conclusion from these Script- 
ure records, and the only theory which can explain the subsequent 
history of the Church, is that which recognizes diocesan Episcopacy 
as a growth and not an original and positive institution. Whether 
such growth proceeded from germinal principles within the Church, 
or was grafted on it from without, and whether it was justified by 
the changed conditions of the Church after the apostles’ death, are 
questions aside from this discussion. In the days of the apostles 
presbyter and bishop were interchangeable names for the same class 
of church officers, who received from the apostles and shared with 
them the right to ordain others to the Christian ministry. They 
kept and exercised this right for a considerable time. But after the 
death of the apostles and the expiration of their peculiar office, 
when the number of presbyters had greatly increased, one was 
chosen in each city or district, as president over the rest, who im- 
posed hands in ordination as the head and representative of the 
presbytery. Out of this arrangement grew by degrees the superior 
dignity and exclusive authority of bishops, who increased in power 
and pride with the increasing corruptions of the Church, until they 
not only laid their hands, as ecclesiastical superiors, on the heads of 
presbyters, but set their feet, as temporal rulers, on the necks of 
princes. This is the theory of Jerome, adopted by Calvin and by 
many of the most eminent scholars and bishops of the Church of 
England. It is reasserted and illustrated with great ability by Mr. 
Hatch. He affirms that “ the Episcopate grew, by the force of 
circumstances, in the order of Providence, to satisfy a felt want .’ 1 
He professes to find “ adequate causes not only for the existence of 
a president (among presbyters), but also for his supremacy without 
resorting to what is not a known fact , but only a counter-hypothesis 
— the hypothesis of a special institution.” For this view he claims 
the support of Jerome, whom he calls “ the earliest and greatest of 
ecclesiastical antiquaries.”* 

The doctrine that the power to ordain belongs exclusively and by 
divine right to diocesan bishops, and its necessary, corollary that 
non-episcopal ordination is null and void, is new even in the Episco- 

* Bampton Lectures for 1880, p. g8. The same theory is maintained by Bishop 
Lightfoot. “ At the close of the apostolic age the traces of the Episcopate are few and 
indistinct. ... If bishop was at first used as a synonym for presbyter, and afterward 
came to designate the higher officer under whom the presbyter served, the Episcopate 
properly so called would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. In 
other words, the Episcopate was formed not out of the apostolic order by localiza- 
tion, but out of the presbyterial by elevation, and the title which originally was common 
to all came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them” (Lightfoot’s The 
Christian Ministry, p. 196). 



pal Church. It is not taught in the Thirty-nine Articles. The 
English Reformers never asserted it in theory or in practice.* * * § 
There is no trace of it in the writings of Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, 
and YVhitgift, the first four Protestant Archbishops of Canterbury. 
If, as some maintain, it was asserted by Bancroft, the fifth primate, 
in his famous sermon at St. Paul’s Cross, it is certain that he did 
not undertake to enforce it ; for in the consecration of the Scottish 
bishops he insisted and persuaded his colleagues that the non- 
episcopal ordination they had received as presbyters was lawful and 
sufficient, f 

We have the testimony of Burnett that in the attempt to estab- 
lish Episcopacy in Scotland “ the bishops never required the Presby- 
terian ministers there to take episcopal ordination, but only to come 
and act with them in Church judicatories.” ^ 

Bishop Hall, who wrote the first formal treatise in defence of the 
divine right of Episcopacy, which he dedicated to Charles I. in 1639, 
acknowledges the validity of non-episcopal ordination, and declares 
that he knows of more than one, ordained without a bishop, who 
had enjoyed promotions and livings in the Church of England 
‘‘without any exception against the lawfulness of their calling.” § 
Blunt, in his Annotated Prayer-Book, admits that up to the days of 
the Commonwealth non-episcopal ordination was recognized as valid 
in the Church of England. He gives a list of those who obtained 
preferment without episcopal ordination, and loftily says ‘‘they 
show the manner in which the Church of England was sagaciously 
leavened with foreign Protestantism by those who wished to reduce 
it to the same abject level . ' ’ || 

The first systematic attempt to enforce exclusive episcopal ordina- 
tion was made by Laud, the sixth Archbishop of Canterbury, whose 
zeal for the mitre and the crown, which he regarded as inseparable, 
was like the wrath of Achilles, “ the direful spring of woes unnum- 
bered.” The high-handed tyranny and bloody cruelty of that 
attempt were among the chief causes of the revolution which 
brought both the king and his ecclesiastical prime minister to the 
scaffold. But the seed sowed by Laud did not perish at his death. 

* See Keble’s Preface to Hooker’s Ecc. Polity, p. 30. 

\ Archbishop Spottiswoode’s History of the Church of Scotland, vol. iii . , p. 209. 

f Burnett’s Vindication of the Church of Scotland, p. 84. London, 1696. 

§ Hall’s Works, vol. ix., p. 536. 

|j See Annotated Prayer-Book, p. 30. For further and abundant proof that Presbyte- 
rian ordination was recognized in the Church of England up to the time of Charles I., our 
readers are referred to Dr. Fisher’s article in the New Englatider[ox 1S74, to Dr. Hodge's 
Church Polity, to Goode’s Non-Episcopal Orders, and to vol. i. of Schaff’s Creeds of 



In the violent reaction of the Restoration both his political and his 
ecclesiastical theories were dominant, and the party in power made 
full use of their opportunity to avenge their own wrongs and to 
enforce their doctrines. The solemn promises of Charles II. to 
those without whose aid he never could have attained to the throne 
of his fathers were ruthlessly broken. The Presbyterians and 
moderate Episcopalians were betrayed and trampled on. By the 
act of uniformity in 1662 episcopal ordination was made essential 
not only to preferment in the Church of England, but to the per- 
formance of any ministerial function in the land. And the act was 
enforced with relentless cruelty. “ The clergy made war on schism 
with such vigor that they had little leisure to make war on vice.” * 
Such men as Howe and Baxter were imprisoned for preaching con- 
trary to act of Parliament. Two thousand of the best ministers of 
the land were expelled from their benefices. The effect of this was 
not merely the loss of their services and the extinction for the time 
of their evangelical spirit in the Church, but it was the final over- 
throw of the party which from the beginning had tried to bring the 
Church of England into closer fellowship with all the Reformed 
Churches, and into more complete harmony with the religious in- 
stincts of the nation. “ The Church of England stood from that 
moment isolated and alone among all the churches of the Christian 
world. ” f 

The attempt to span the great gulf which separates her in doctrine 
and practice from the Romish and Eastern churches by a suspension 
bridge hung on the wires of apostolic succession and episcopal ordi- 
nations, first made by Laud and repeated in our day in the Tractarian 
movement, has utterly failed. And though the ever-increasing 
power of the non-conforming interest compelled the repeal of the 
persecuting features of the Act of Uniformity by the Toleration Act 
of 1689, the Church of England still stands separated from all the 
churches of the Reformation by the doctrine and requirement of 
episcopal ordination. 

This separation was effected in 1662 by the introduction into the 
preface of the Ordinal the following sentence as it now stands in the 
Episcopal Prayer-Book in England and in this country : “ No man 
shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon 
in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, 
except he be called, tried and admitted thereto according to the 
form hereafter following, or hath had episcopal consecration or ordi- 

* Macaulay’s Hist., vol. i., p. 165. 

t Green’s History of the English People, vol. iv., p. 364. 



What is the implication of this law in regard to non-episcopal 
ordination ? Does it involve the opinion and warrant the inference 
that those who have not been ordained by a diocesan bishop have no 
divine right to exercise any of the functions of a minister in the 
Church of Christ ? We think it certainly does. They who are 
called High Churchmen candidly say so. We can readily under- 
stand them, and can respect both their candor and their consistency, 
whatever we may think of their opinions and of the attitude they feel 
compelled to assume. The history of the law and the uniform prac- 
tice of the Episcopal Church in England and America since it was 
adopted confirms the High Church interpretation. The Episcopal 
Church receives priests from the Greek and Roman Catholic churches 
as having already received a valid ordination, while they uniformly 
reordain ministers coming to them from other Protestant denomina- 

But surely they do not regard this as a reordination. The lowest 
of Low Churchmen, we venture to say, would not admit that they 
ordain over again those who have already received a lawful and valid 
ordination. The Church of England and her daughter in this 
country “ hold no other orders lawful than those ministered by 
bishops, and she acts on that principle as her law. How can she 
avoid condemning as unlawful, and that not in England, but every- 
where, all other orders non-episcopal?”* This is both frank and 
logical. While the law of the Episcopal Church, as interpreted by 
her uniform practice, continues what it is ; while no man who has 
not been episcopally ordained is admitted to her ministry, nor even 
allowed occasionally to minister in her pulpits and in her celebration 
of the sacraments, it is neither consistent nor candid to contend that 
the Episcopal Church does not condemn the ordination of other 
denominations as null and void. Nor is the force of this inference 
at all impaired by insisting, as some do, upon the peculiar phrase- 
ology of the law, which says “ no man shall be accounted or taken 
to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church . . . except 
he has had episcopal consecration or ordination.” Was the expres- 
sion “ this Church” intended to separate, and does it, in fact, sepa- 
rate the Episcopal Church in the matter of its orders from the cor- 
porate life and the divine mission of the visible Church of Christ? 
Was it intended to affirm that episcopal ordination confers upon 
those who receive it authority to preach the Word and administer 
the sacraments only within the bounds of the Episcopal denomination ? 
No churchman, High or Low, would admit this. They all hold, as 

* Haddan’s Apostolic Succession, p. 175. 



we do, that ordination makes a man a minister of the visible Church 
of Christ, and gives him a commission as broad as that of the apos- 
tles to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments to every 
creature. If, therefore, non-episcopal ordination does not confer 
the right to perform ministerial functions within the bounds of “ this 
Church,” it does not confer the right to perform such functions any- 
where. It is but a weak evasion to tell us that they recognize our 
ordination as valid in the Presbyterian denomination. P'or it is not 
a human right conferred and limited by a voluntary association of 
men that we are discussing, but a divine right conferred by the 
supreme head of the Church. The question before us is whether 
they recognize our ordination as valid in the visible Church of Christ. 
For their own sake we answer this question in the negative. We are 
not willing to believe that they account us true ministers of Christ 
and stewards of the mysteries of God, and yet presume, in defiance 
of Christ’s commission to us, to say, “ You may preach and admin- 
ister the sacraments anywhere else, but we cannot allow you to per- 
form any function of the ministry in ‘ this Church.’ ” This would 
be the very essence of sectarianism and schism. We dare not accuse 
them of such disloyalty to the doctrine of the Church and to Christ, 
her living Head. 

But it is asked, as though the question carried with it a complete 
vindication of their position, so far, at least, as we have any right to 
complain of it, “ Does not the Presbyterian Church exclude from 
her pulpits and the administration of the sacraments some who claim 
to be ministers of Christ?” Yes, certainly, we exclude some who 
claim to be ministers of Christ ; but we exclude none zvhose claims 
we recognize as valid. We dare not put a sectarian fence around our 
pulpit or our communion table. They belong not to us, but to 
Christ. In the matter of ordination we recognize the obvious dis- 
tinction between validity and regularity. We think the substance 
of this or of any divine ordinance may remain, even when, through 
want of explicit instruction from God, or of clear apprehension on 
the part of men, the form of it has been changed. We recognize 
ordination by a diocesan bishop as valid, though we regard it as 
irregular ; and there is not a presbytery in the world who would for 
a moment entertain the proposal to reordain an Episcopal minister. 

‘‘Why, then,” say some of our Episcopal brethren, “ since you 
acknowledge the validity of our ordination, will you not heal the 
schism between us by taking orders at the hands of our bishops?” 
This proposition has been made, and we believe that it is made, not 
in any spirit of proselytism, but in good faith, and with an earnest 
desire for the unity of the visible Church. But there are three 



obstacles in the way of its acceptance : (i) We cannot consent to be 
ordained twice ; (2) we cannot admit the assumption on which the 
necessity for episcopal ordination is based ; (3) even if we could 
plead guilty ourselves, we cannot admit that multitudes of Christ’s 
ministers, who without such ordination have made full proof of their 
ministry and gone to their reward, were usurpers in the sacred 
office. So long as this remains the only condition of mutual recog- 
nition the case seems hopeless. And while this obstacle stands, 
alliances and conventions outside of the Church, kind words and 
acts of courtesy carefully separated from ministerial functions and 
the communion of the body of Christ, however sweet and pleasant 
in themselves, are utterly inadequate to the case ; and when we con- 
sider the great interests at issue they seem like “ vanity and a striv- 
ing after wind ” (Eccles. i. 14, Revised Version). 

If the Episcopal Church could come back to the spirit and prac- 
tice of her earlier, and in this respect her better, days, and acknowl- 
edge non-episcopal ordination as valid, though in their judgment 
irregular, this would put us upon an equal footing ; it would tend 
to remove prejudice and silence evil speaking on all sides ; it would, 
perhaps, put an end to that supercilious and irritating assumption 
which makes “ this Church” synonymous with “ the Church and 
so it would create an atmosphere of mutual confidence and respect 
in which the unity of the Church would grow like the lily and cast 
forth roots as Lebanon. Zealous Episcopalians will probably resent 
the bare suggestion of such a concession on their part. Some, like 
Dr. Blunt, will look upon it as a renewed attempt of foreign Prot- 
estantism to bring them down ‘‘to the same abject level. ” But 
vehement protests, though they express the sincere conviction and 
desire of individuals, are not always true prophecies of what great 
bodies of people will do. Extreme opinions are never the most 
stable. Stranger changes than the one suggested have swept over 
even the Episcopal Church. When Bancroft, or Hall, or Laud first 
preached the doctrine of exclusive jure divino episcopacy, there was 
little prospect of its being dominant and established by law in the 
Church of England. And yet in half a century its triumph was 
complete, and that, too, through what seemed for a time to be its 
utter overthrow. And so the recent attempt to reconcile the Church 
of England with Rome and the Greek Church having failed, the 
desire for visible, catholic unity, coupled with the Protestant in- 
stincts of the English people, may make such utterances as those of 
Bishop Wordsworth,* in his recent charge to the clergy of his dio- 

* “ In dealing with this question we must not allow ourselves to be carried away by 
ny merely mechanical or imperfect view of what is called apostolic succession, or, in 



cese, and of Bishop Lightfoot, in his essay on the Christian Ministry, 
the seeds of another great movement leading to better and more 
permanent results. Perhaps there is a blessing in disguise for the 
Episcopal Church in England and in this country in the threats of 
disestablishment, which are the far-off responses of those who were 
expelled from the Church by the Act of Uniformity. We know 
that the doctrine of exclusive episcopal ordination was enacted into 
a law for political quite as much as for ecclesiastical purposes. The 
dominant opinion in the days of the Restoration was that prelacy 
and kingship must stand or fall together. “No bishop, no king’’ 
was always the battle-cry and the pass-word of the Stuarts and their 
adherents in Church and State. But if disestablishment should 
demonstrate in fact what nearly all men now believe in theory, that 
both Church and State can stand alone, and each fulfil its own func- 
tion the better for the separation, this may go far to modify the 
attitude of the Episcopal body toward other denominations, by 
making them realize that they are dissenters from us as much as we 
are dissenters from them. 

These observations are made in no spirit of unfriendliness toward 
the Episcopal Church. The writer of this article has no sympathy 
with the ignorant and indiscriminate denunciation of her government 
and forms of worship as inconsistent with vital piety, or as having a 
kinship with the errors of Romanism. We recognize her historically 
and in the present as one of the grand bulwarks of genuine Protes- 
tantism. We have a sincere admiration for the decency and order of 
her worship, and a profound gratitude, as every Christian scholar 
must have, for the rich biblical literature she has given and is still 
giving to the world. We observe with unmixed pleasure her increas- 
ing zeal for missions and for preaching the Gospel to the poor at 
home, and the demonstration she is giving that her liturgical forms 
and her maintenance of Church authority are not inconsistent with 
evangelistic fervor and success. 

And because we thus regard her we desire to see her laying aside 
every weight, taking up every stumbling-block, and casting off every 

other words, of the continuity of the ministry and of the Church itself. That continuity 
consists in doctrine at least as much as in order ; and it may be claimed upon the 
former ground by all bodies that accept the articles of the Christian creed. More than 
this, it may be reasonably doubted whether orthodox non-Episcopalian bodies have not 
done more to maintain the true apostolic succession as explained and insisted on by 
Irenseus and Tertullian than the Church of Rome has done, which has gone far by alter- 
ations and additions to corrupt the simplicity, not only of the apostolic doctrine, but of 
the apostolic ministry, whereas the only true and perfect continuity consists, as I have 
said, in having retained or recovered both” (Bishop Wordsworth’s Address to Clergy, 



prejudice which narrows her sympathies and hinders her progress 
toward the triumph of the Gospel and the unity of the body of 
Christ. Nor do we assume that she alone needs to adjust herself to 
the good time coming, that the stumbling-blocks are all in her way, 
and the shells of traditional prejudice cling only to her limbs. The 
Presbyterian Church is equally liable to changes, and by no means 
exempt from the need of them. Are they not now passing over and 
through us ? Is not the atmosphere of our Church different from 
what it was a generation ago ? While we trust there is no less zeal 
for essential truth, we know and feel there is far more toleration for 
non-essential differences in opinions and in forms of worship. We 
do not sympathize with those who are alarmed and troubled by 
these things. For we regard them not as the changing colors of the 
autumn leaves that prophesy decay, but rather as the tender hues 
and budding fertility of the spring which predict and produce the 
coming harvest. We adopt as our own these cheerful and generous 
words : 

“ We are hopeful of a combination of Protestantism and the ultimate reunion of 
Christendom. We are sincerely attached to American Presbyterianism as the religion 
of our ancestors ; we believe that it is in advance of all other Christian denominations 
in the realization of the ideal of Christianity ; but Presbyterianism is not a finality. It 
is the stepping-stone to something higher and grander yet to come, when the Spirit of 
God shall be poured out in richer measure and in more abounding gifts and graces upon 
the Christian world, in order to a revival of religion which will transcend the Protestant 
Reformation by its omnipotent energy and world-wide sweep” (Briggs’s American 
Presbyterianism, Preface, p. 13). 

Brooklyn, N. V. 

Henry J. Van Dyke, Sr. 



T HE idea of oughtness is an ethical atom. It cannot be re- 
solved into simpler constituents. Every attempt to derive 
“ ought-not” from “ better-not” has failed. We feel that we ought : 
this is an ultimate psychological fact. Of every ethical system, there- 
fore, we must ask whether it will give us an obligatory morality. 
Failure in this respect on the part of the systems taught by Mill, Bain, 
Spencer and Stephen, must be regarded as proof of their inade- 
quacy until it can be shown that the word “ ought ” has no legiti- 
mate place in ethical science; until, that is to say, it can be shown 
that “ ought ” does not stand for the categorical imperative, ‘ Do 
this,’ but for the hypothetical imperative, ‘ Do this, if you wish to 
secure certain results.’ It is, however, as impossible to rob ought- 
ness of its authority as it is to discover its genesis in our experiences 
of pleasure or pain. Clifford’s fiction of a tribal self ” is so baseless 
that, rather than adopt it, later writers of the school to which he be- 
longs have preferred to let the idea of moral obligation go unac- 
counted for. Clifford, however, saw (what Spencer and Stephen seem 
not to have considered) that the idea of obligation unexplained is a 
standing menace to the ethic of evolution. In his fanciful attempt to 
show the naturalistic genesis of the idea of oughtness Clifford reveals 
his knowledge of the strength which this idea contributes to the cause 
of intuitional morality. Intuitional morals are poorly defended, we 
may be sure, when the categorical imperative is assigned to a subor- 
dinate position. If it were successfully shown that the feeling of ob- 
ligation has grown up gradually in experience, or that it stands only 
as the symbol of “ a strong ideal avoidance,” we should have to 
admit that Utilitarianism had made a very dangerous encroachment 
upon the territory of Intuitionalism. The advocate of Intuitional- 
ism has, therefore, the deepest interest in the purely psychological 
question touching the genesis of conscience; and the failure of em- 
pirical philosophy hitherto to account for moral obligation may well 
encourage us to believe that the cause of Intuitionalism is safe for 
many a day to come. The psychological side of the question, how- 



ever, is not the only one that has interest for the student of ethics. 
Indeed, it is not the one which possesses chief interest, for in dealing 
with it the intuitional philosopher is acting mainly on the defensive. 
The idea of oughtness seems so self-evidently simple and indecom- 
posable that there would be no need of dwelling upon this fact were 
it not that the advocates of empiricism are under a necessity im- 
posed upon them by the exigencies of their theory, of trying at least 
to trace the genesis of this idea to simpler elements of experience. 
Assuming, however, that oughtness is an ultimate psychological 
fact, we must consider it in its metaphysical aspect. And since the 
title of this article is “ The Metaphysics of Oughtness,” we shall do 
nothing out of the way if we begin by giving some account of 
what metaphysic is. If to the professed student of philosophy such 
an explanation should, as in all probability it will, seem superflu- 
ous, it is enough to say that a great many readers are, or ought to 
be, interested in fundamental questions in moral science, who never- 
theless are not professed students of philosophy. 

S- As good a way as any of arriving at the meaning of metaphysic is 
to begin by considering the demand made sometimes by scientific 
men that science shall concern itself simply with phenomena. Re- 
ducing knowledge to the method of science, as Mr. Lewes phrased it, 
means dealing with everything as if it were amenable to the senses, and 
rejecting everything that is recalcitrant to this mode of treatment. 
We understand what this demand is, and how absurd it is. For, 
suppose that it were possible to treat mental facts as physical facts ; 
suppose we could weigh love or apply the calculus to pleasure and 
pain ; we should not have succeeded in reducing everything to the 
method of science. We should have succeeded in saying, perhaps, 
that we take cognizance of nothing that is not measurable in the 
terms of mathematics. But what of mathematics ? That science is 
not empirical, and not only is it not empirical, but our empirical 
knowledge would not amount to much if we did not have this 
a priori , this metempirical science to apply to it. So you might say 
with regard to the sciences of pure observation, ‘ Let the facts be 
gathered, and let them be classified and reduced to system, and let 
us deal with psychological facts in the same way that we do with 
physical.’ You have a statement, as the result of such a process, of 
what is ; you have a tabulated and classified inventory of facts. 
And if it be said that all there is of knowledge is such an inventory, 
we reply by asking how you came to make this inventory, why you 
are shut up to certain methods, and how it comes to pass that there 
is such agreement among men in regard to method and content in 
the matter of classification. It will come out before long that there 



are certain necessities of thought that determine these things, and 
that but for these necessities the work of classification could not 
have proceeded. Similarly, if one should say that logic is a tabu- 
lated account of the laws of thinking, we should say, ‘ Yes. It is a 
writing down of the facts as I find them about the necessities I am 
under when I think.’ And in that sense you might call logic an 
empirical science just as geology is. But in another sense it is not. 
For while the laws of thinking may be revealed in experience, they 
are not derived from experience. A man must be a logician by 
nature before he is one by profession. So that logic, like mathe- 
matics, is not only a science that resists the demand that all knowl- 
edge be treated in the terms of what is seen and can be measured, 
but it is the organon of those sciences which have for content 
what can be weighed and measured. There is, then, a basis for the 
distinction between what is a matter of experience and what is a 
condition of experience. 

By far the largest part of our knowledge is empirical : we get it 
through experience. Let us in a rough way consider what is meant 
by empirical truth. We have sensations : modifications of con- 
sciousness effected through our bodily organism ; we have percep- 
tions : the recognition of existences outside of and objective to 
ourselves. A classification of our perceptions, or, rather, the appli- 
cation of the laws of thought to our perceptions in any sphere of 
observation, will give us the science of that sphere of observation, 
as in geology, chemistry, astronomy. Such sciences are empirical. 
The knowledge that we obtain whatever method be employed is of 
the phenomenal. Let the observer now turn his gaze inward. He 
is still observing what he sees, what appears —phenomena. And if 
he observe accurately, tabulate exhaustively, classify logically, and, 
in so far as he be able to do so, account for these phenomena, he will 
give us the science of mind. It will be an empirical science quite as 
much as geology is. It will state the results of observation carried 
on in the territory of mind. Psychology is an empirical science ; 
metaphysics a metempirical. And it will appear that in psychology, 
as well as in physics, there is a metempirical residuum which these 
sciences, as such, are not called upon to deal with. It is this 
metempirical residuum which constitutes the matter of metaphysic. 

Among the things that we know we distinguish. We are sure of 
many things, but not of everything in the same way. Of some facts 
we feel sure because we are informed upon the authority of those 
who know. Other truths we know because we see that they are 
necessarily involved in what we know already. If a man should tell 
us that he had succeeded in making an isosceles triangle with unequal 



angles at the base, and should offer to prove it by actual measure- 
ment with a pair of compasses, we should pronounce him a charlatan 
and a fool. For when deductive logic is fairly inferential it is 
demonstrably and imperiously so. % There are, however, other ele- 
ments of knowledge for which we can give no reason. Of most of 
our beliefs touching the facts of consciousness or the external world, 
we can give some account ; and we are satisfied when we can say 
that this is true because it necessarily follows from something else 
that is known to be true. But it is clear that this regress cannot go 
on forever. We must come by and by to something that is true in 
and of itself without regard to anything else. And so we find that 
there are beliefs that we cannot give any account of, that we cannot 
dispossess ourselves of, that not only do not grow out of experience 
but that condition the possibility of experience. It is important for 
us to make this matter clear to ourselves, for we are now on the 
water-shed of the two great streams of philosophic thought that 
afterward flow so far apart. Hume said that all knowledge is the 
outgrowth of sensation. The empirical philosophy of the present 
day, the philosophy of Spencer, for example, builds upon Hume’s! 

We are to believe, then, that once upon a time there was some- 
body who was a stranger to such ideas as Time, Space, Cause, Sub- 
stance, and Personal Identity. But this somebody had a sensation. 
Out of this sensation has grown up our present system of organized 
knowledge. Let us interrogate this man who never had an idea 
until he had a pain. I should like to ask him where the pain is. Is 
it in the extremities, or nearer the centre of his organism ? He 
cannot tell : he has no idea of Space, no ‘ here,’ no ‘ there.’ I would 
like to know when he was taken with it ; but still he cannot tell : he 
has no idea of Time. I would be glad to know if he has had more than 
one such sensation ; but he does not know : he has no idea of succes- 
sion. Ask him, further, if he has this sensation now. He replies 
by asking what you mean by ‘ now.’ But if he does not know he 
has it now, how does he know he had it yesterday?. He has no 
memory, for memory implies both Time and Personal Identity. 
Suppose, however, he says that he has this sensation, how does he 
know that the pain at the beginning of the minute belongs to the 
same man who has it at the end of the minute, seeing that he has 
no idea of Personal Identity ? And suppose he can say ‘ I.’ What 
does ‘ I ’ mean? ‘ I feel a sensation.’ What do we understand 
by that ? Most of us would say that there is something that thinks, 
feels and wills. The thinking may be different, the feelings may 
vary at different times, but the thinker, the feeler is the same. 



There is something standing under and supporting these changing 
phenomena. ‘ I ’ means something as we use it, for we have the 
idea of Substance. But this man, who has but a single sensation, 
has no idea of Substance. What can ‘ I ’ stand for in his case ? 
Now, it looks as though a man who only had sensations, but could 
not locate them, could not compare them, could not say, ‘ they are 
mine,’ could not say ‘ now ’ and ‘ then,’ ‘ here ’ and ‘ there ’ regarding 
them, could not be said to have much experience. Indeed, it is diffi- 
cult to see how a man could have a sensation without being able to 
say that it was here and not there, or realize ‘ now ’ as to having it with- 
out realizing ‘ then ’ also. Kant, therefore, made a strong argument 
against Hume when he said that certain ideas did not come out of 
experience, and proved what he said by showing that the simplest 
experience would have been impossible if these ideas had not 
existed beforehand. 

All knowledge is either derived by inference from antecedent 
knowledge, or is self-evident and intuitional. All inferential knowl- 
edge ultimately leans upon intuitions. It follows, therefore, that 
the fate of all science and philosophy is involved in the fate of the 
underlying intuitive or a priori knowledge. Hence the logical 
order, not the chronological, of investigation must be an inquiry 
into the meaning and value of these a priori cognitions and beliefs. 
Absurd as it may seem, the first step logically in the acquisition of 
knowledge is a rigid inquiry whether knowledge is possible. For, if 
all knowledge rests on first truths, and first truths turn out not to be 
such, or not to be known to be such, then first truths not being 
known nothing is known, and our magnificent sciences are only card- 
castles blown down by the breath of the metaphysicians. The 
Critique of the Pure Reason, every one must see, therefore, is the first 
work to be done by way of preparing to build the Temple of Knowl- 
edge. This is the work, no more, no less, which Kant undertook. 
This, together with the masterly way in which he did it, is what 
gives his treatise such fundamental place in philosophic literature. 

The study of the a priori elements in knowledge, or, to speak in 
broader terms, the theory of knowledge, constitutes a part of meta- 
physics. And if the idea of oughtness be included among these 
a priori beliefs, we are bound not only to record the fact and give it 
a place among phenomena in the science of psychology, but we are 
bound to discuss its meaning as one of the a priori factors of our 
life, and such a study is rightly called a metaphysical inquiry. 

Whether there be any other scope for metaphysic — whether, in 
other words, besides taking cognizance of a priori beliefs, metaphysic 
deals with metempirical existence, depends altogether upon the out- 


IS 2 

come of the Critique of Pure Reason, by whomsoever this critique is 
attempted. To be sure of being clear in regard to this point, let us 
turn our attention to another stage in the Kantian philosophy. 
Kant, as we all know, refuted Hume by showing that the mind 
brings to experience the categories by which it judges experience. 
This was Kant’s signal service to philosophy. But when Kant 
found himself face to face with the ideas of Time, Substance and 
Cause he said : ‘ I have these ideas. I am necessitated to have 
them. These ideas are intuitions. But what of that ? I have 
never seen Substance. I have never seen Self. These are entities 
which, if they exist at all, certainly transcend my experience. I do 
not say that such entities do not exist. Some of these ideas do not 
stand for entities, but only for forms of thought, and those which 
do stand for entities stand for things which I do not know as they 
are in themselves. These ideas are the rubrics of my thinking. 
They are the traces in which I must consent to go, and therefore 
there is no use trying to get rid of them. The subjective neces- 
sity of these ideas I am very sure of. Whether they have objective 
value is another matter.’ This was where Kant gave occasion to 
those who charged him with Idealism, and where, at all events, he 
justly stands credited as joint-author with Hume of modern Agnos- 
ticism. Those, therefore, who say, with Kant, that we cannot get 
outside of the circle of subjectivity in regard to the meaning of our 
a priori ideas, repudiate Ontology, and Ontology, though not the 
whole of Metaphysic, is a very important part of it. For if the 
Critique of the Pure Reason, the first part of Metaphysic, which is a 
theory of knowledge, is not led out into the sceptical conclusions of 
Kant, it must lead on to what is the second part of Metaphysic — 
that is, to Ontology, or the science of Being. So that if we say 
that Metaphysic is the science of Knowing and Being we shall 
not be so far astray. 

Let us see how a science of Knowing ends in a science of Being. 
We have, then, as ultimate facts of our mental nature, certain 
a priori ideas, among them those of Cause, Substance and 'Personal 
Identity. Every possible object of sensation or perception stands 
related to these ideas. The universe submits at once to the natural 
dichotomy represented by ‘ me’ and ‘ not-me. ’ Every new event, by a 
necessity of thought, is regarded as having a Cause, every phenomenon 
as related to some Substance. If, then, we are not wilfully sceptical, 
we are bound to have a theory of things, we are bound to apply to 
phenomena the categories of Cause and Substance. Conceiving of 
phenomena as successive, as dependent and conditioned, we apply 
the judgment of causation, and ask whether we shall take the infinite 



regress alternative or the unconditioned First Cause alternative. 
Applying to phenomena the category of Substance, we ask what 
lies behind the phenomena of intellect, feeling and will ; what lies 
behind the phenomena of extension and motion. The psychologist 
need not busy himself with anything more than the phenomena of 
mental life. If he go beneath these phenomena to discuss the 
nature or prove the existence of mind he becomes a metaphysician. 
The physicist also need not go beyond the phenomena of the physi- 
cal world. These are open to his inspection. They can be 
weighed, measured, counted, treated with re-agents, put into 
retorts, and, speaking generally, be made the subject of calculation 
and measurement. Whatever be the true theory as to the ultimate 
constitution of matter, his results will not be affected. He is not 
prevented, of course, from dealing with the problem of ontology, 
and therefore he may have his theory as to the existence or non- 
existence of matter. In that event, however, he becomes a meta- 
physician. Now, it is quite evident that one’s ideas of oughtness 
would be very much affected if he should hold a materialistic or a 
pantheistic, as opposed to the Theistic, theory of the universe. 
And as any theory of the universe implies an Ontology, and as 
Ontology is metaphysic, the metaphysical aspect of the idea of 
oughtness is a matter of very serious concern. By the metaphysical 
aspect of the idea we mean an explanation of the nature, scope and 
implications of moral obligation considered as an ultimate truth ; and 
the relations which the idea of moral obligation sustains to leading 
theories of the universe. For reasons which will be evident enough 
as we proceed, we shall reverse this order, though it is the natural 
order, and consider, in the first place, the relation of the idea of 
moral obligation to theories of the universe. 

If we attend to the specific differences that characterize philo- 
sophical systems we shall have to admit that there are many theo- 
ries of the universe. Generically speaking, however, we shall not be 
far astray if we say that there are three leading theories of the uni- 
verse. We do not include Agnosticism among these, for Agnosticism, 
so far as it is a theory, is the theory that a theory of the universe is 
impossible. According to one of the theories referred to, the world 
(including phenomena of mind and matter, and irrespective of the 
question as to the dualism of mind and matter) stands as finite and 
conditioned causally related to one Infinite First Cause. This is 
Theism. According to the other two, this dualism of Creator and 
creature, God and the world, conditioned and unconditioned, is 
blotted out. Instead of a Dualistic we have a Monistic theory. 
Treating, now, the totality of things under this Monistic conception, 



we may regard it as an aggregate of material atoms which sustain 
relations to each other and move. This is Materialism. If it is 
thought best to define this system by showing its relation to the 
idea of God and to that of the world we may say indifferently, each 
being as true as the other, that it is an atheistic or a pancosmic sys- 
tem. Or, conceiving of this Monistic system not as matter, but as 
mind, as many do, all that seems to be material will be treated as 
sense-illusion. Matter as stuff, as hard, impenetrable entity, pos- 
sessed of extension, is not. The so-called phenomena of matter are 
really manifestations of spirit. Such a theory of the universe is an- 
tipodally related to the one just referred to. It is not Materialism, 
but Spiritualism. If we wish to define this system also by showing 
its relations to the familiar conceptions of God and the world, we 
may say — and it does not make much difference whether we employ 
one or the other form of expression — either that it is a pantheistic 
or an acosmic system. 

The question before us is the relation of the categorical imperative 
to these theories of the universe. Suppose, for example, that the 
Pantheistic system were true. According to this system, there is 
one substance ; all is that one substance : all is God. All phe- 
nomena are modes of thjs substance. All physical change and all 
mental change — that is to say, all phenomena in extension and in 
thought — take place necessarily. So-called choice, self-direction, 
and volition are chimeras. Under such a conception, of course, 
human conduct ceases to be a matter of self-determination, and 
therefore ceases to be a matter about which obligation can be 
affirmed. We can say regarding it what is or will be, but not what 
ought to be, for in the idea of oughtness there is involved not only 
an obligatory Ideal, but a Free Agent. 

If, however, instead of being a Pantheist a man become a Mate- 
' rialist, he reaches the same conclusions, so far as ethics are con- 
cerned. I am told, for example, that I ought to be honest. And 
without raising the question as to why I ought to be honest, or 
making the distinction between the categorical and the hypothetical 
imperative, suppose I admit that I ought to be honest. When you 
say and I concede that I ought, it is conceded that I can. It is 
taken for granted, that is to say, that I am a self-determining agent, 
and that Will stands for something. But what become of Will and 
spontaneity under the materialistic conception of the world ? There 
are certain chemical constituents that enter into my body, certain 
molecular changes going on in my brain. Given the molecular 
changes, there come out certain so-called psychical acts of memory, 
volition and feeling. Turn the barrel of the music-box, and there 



comes out music. Given the mechanism of the music-box or the 
hand-organ, you know in advance what tunes will be played. Ask, 
now, your Italian’s monkey to improvise on his master’s hand-organ 
and treat us to a new air : you make a demand that is l umin ous with 
propriety compared with the expectation that a man shall direct his 
own conduct when by ‘ man ’ you mean only a certain number of 
material atoms sustaining organic relation, and by ‘ conduct ’ you 
mean only the modes in which these atoms act and react on one 
another. Thought is as mechanical as digestion ; conduct is as 
purposeless as soda-water ; and in all creation it would be hard to 
find a more glaring incongruity than there is between the feeling of 
obligation, on the one hand, and the knowledge, on the other, that 
man, like every other part of nature, is bound hand and foot in the 
iron grip of necessity. 

In the light of what has just been said, it is easy to understand 
the meaning of the question, Have we any Ethic ? It may mean, 
Can we command conduct categorically and regardless of conse- 
quences ? This will depend upon the question whether the categori- 
cal imperative is capable of being reduced to lower terms. That, 
however, is not the idea that is in the minds of those who are asking 
this question at the present day. Understanding by ethic the 
science that deals with the regulation of human conduct through the 
will, the question, Have we any Ethic ? means, Is it worth while to 
tell a man to do this or that ? to seek— either through the idea of 
obligation or from motives of self-interest — to change his behavior? 
If what a man will do depends upon his physical constitution and 
environment, he has nothing to say in the matter one way or the 
other. Herein lies the most serious objection to the evolution 
ethic. It has tried without success to account empirically for the 
idea of obligation. It is a phase of Utilitarianism urging morality 
upon men through the very insufficient motive of regard for the 
health and happiness of the social organism. Really, however, if it 
be true to its premises, it has no right to make any appeal at all. 
For if the doctrine of evolution, as taught by those who are most 
anxious to make an ethical application of it, were successfully ap- 
plied to ethics, the science of ethics would cease to deal with what 
ought to be, and confine itself strictly to what is. Ethic, in other 
words, would simply be significant of that branch of science which 
deals with the natural history of conduct. 

If we are to have a science of morality that shall seek to deter- 
mine what men ought to do, we must have a theory of the universe 
that recognizes the separate existence of finite minds. The rights 
of Personality and the existence of obligatory morality stand or fall 



together. And since no consistent theory of Personality can be 
held which does not involve a theistic view of the world by logical 
consequence, we may say, without exaggeration, that Theism con- 
ditions the possibility of ethical science. The question regarding the 
relation of oughtness to theories of the universe is thus narrowed to 
a consideration of its relation to the theistic view of the world. 
Two points will be considered in this connection : We shall ask, 
first, how far the idea of oughtness is corroborative of Theism, and, 
secondly, how far the hypothesis of Theism is properly interpretative 
of oughtness. 

The moral argument is very generally conceded to be one of the 
strongest in support of our belief in the existence of God. Some, 
following Kant in this respect, allow little weight to any other. 
This argument has a twofold place in theistic discussion. It con- 
tributes predicates to our conception of the Divine Being whose 
existence is vindicated on other grounds ; and it is itself an inde- 
pendent witness to the existence of the Divine Being, though there 
is room for inquiring how far one is logically consistent in falling 
back upon the argument based upon conscience after rejecting that 
based upon the causal judgment. Being satisfied that the facts of 
the universe can be rationally explained only upon the hypothesis of 
a Being infinite in power and wisdom, we cannot resist the belief — 
here, as before, arguing according to the analogy of our nature — 
that this Being has moral attributes, that He is holy, just, and true. 
These moral attributes are given us through our Conscience. But in 
so far as they are only predicates given to a Being whose existence 
is otherwise ascertained, they presuppose the results reached by 
other modes of argument. It will be held, however, that this argu- 
ment has independent and constructive value ; that in and of itself it 
establishes the existence of the Divine Being as well as clothes him 
with moral attributes ; and this is true. The argument based upon 
the idea of moral obligation and immutable righteousness is a very 
strong argument for the existence of a moral Governor — that is 
to say, the presence of the Conscience in man is most rationally 
accounted for by the hypothesis of an infinite moral Governor. 
Broadly distinguished as the moral argument is from the argument 
a contingcntia mundi and the argument from design, it is neverthe- 
less, like both of these, an application of the doctrine of the Suffi- 
cient Reason. And it is very questionable whether those who can 
do without the hypothesis of God in order to account for physical 
phenomena will be under the pressure of any peculiar logical neces- 
sity that will call for the hypothesis of God to account for moral 
phenomena. Apart, however, from the bearing of the phenomena 



of Conscience upon the underlying idea of the Sufficient Reason, 
it is undoubtedly true that the moral nature of man furnishes a 
distinct type of argument for the existence of God. We feel that 
vve are under obligation to do Right. This is the testimony of Con- 
science. It is argued that this idea of obligation is not rationally 
satisfied except upon the hypothesis of a Being who sustains the 
relation of Moral Governor, and that the idea of Right as unmistak- 
ably points to the nature of God as the norm or standard of Right. 
This is undoubtedly true. Professor Flint and Cardinal Newman 
have both presented this argument with great power. I cannot 
agree, however, with Professor Flint in supposing that the argument 
is entirely independent of the current discussions concerning the 
genesis of conscience and the meaning of moral obligation. Assum- 
ing that the ideas of ought and of right are a priori ideas, the theistic 
argument based upon them is sound and good. If conscience cannot 
be shown to have been generated out of experience, it most unmis- 
takably points to the theistic conclusion. But it is too much to say 
that the argument for Theism is the same no matter what the gen- 
esis of conscience may have been. For what is that argument ? 
Briefly, this : We feel ourselves under a law commanding us at all 
cost to do Right. Obligation cannot change places with expediency. 
Duty is not determined by self-interest, but is shaped by an undevi- 
ating law of Right. Who enunciates that law of Right ? Who has 
put us under the spell of this Categorical Imperative ? We answer, 
God. Now, it is as clear as day that this argument derives its whole 
value from the interpretation we put upon the words Right and 
Ought. But suppose we accept the naturalistic theory as to the 
genesis of these ideas. Suppose we understand that ‘ ought ’ meant 
originally what is best for us and that ‘ ought-not ’ only meant dread of 
punishment. Suppose, in a word, we accept Bain’s or Spencer’s 
account of the genesis of these ideas ; will it be possible for us to 
avoid putting a different meaning upon them ? It will be said, per- 
haps, that no matter how the idea of oughtness originated, it is here, 
and it has a definite meaning. It may be said that, though ought- 
ness once stood for prudence, it does not stand for prudence now. It 
may be said that whatever the genesis of the feeling may have been, 
the feeling is not now exchangeable for any other feeling. That is all 
true. I grant that no natural history of the idea of obligation 
can make that idea equivalent to the idea of prudence. But 
though emotionally 1 may not be able to dispossess myself of the 
feeling of moral obligation, I may nevertheless intellectually be able 
to see that this feeling is not worthy of any particular respect. And 
most assuredly, when I come to believe that oughtness as I experi- 



encc it is only transformed prudence, I shall not suppose that a 
metaphysical argument can be built upon it in proof of the Divine 
existence. It is a mistake to say that the argument based upon 
conscience has nothing to do with the current theories as to the 
genesis of conscience ; it has everything to do with them. Given 
the intellectual character of the idea of moral obligation, and the 
theistic argument based upon Conscience is irresistible. Hence the 
importance of showing that the intuitional character of oughtness 
has not been successfully assailed. 

It does not follow, however, from what has just been said, that the 
theory of a naturalistic genesis of conscience destroys all moral 
argument for the existence of God. I distinctly hold that, were the 
evolutionists to succeed in giving us an account of the rise and de- 
velopment of conscience, we should still have a moral argument, and 
a very important moral argument, for the existence of God. But it 
should be said that it would be a very different argument from that 
which is commonly employed. Let it be granted that all conduct, 
as the evolutionists say, is in the terms of pleasure and pain. Let it 
be granted that under the operation of felicific impulse men have 
evolved the regulated social behavior which they call morality. 
Then this involves certain indubitable facts that deserve attention. 
For it turns out that under the impulse to seek pleasure men have 
evolved an Ideal which stands for the goal at which they would fain 
arrive. They value life and the things of life bv their bearing upon 
this Ideal. They are seeking happiness, yet they have evolved a 
canon of conduct that sticks stubbornly in the breast of every man — 
defying analysis and resisting all efforts at eviction — and according 
to this canon conduct is not to be approved because pleasure-giving, 
but because it is right. They love pleasure, but feel under obliga- 
tion to do right. They find that when they do what they ought to do 
they are happy, and that when they seek happiness at the expense 
of duty they miss it. They are moving on and up toward the real- 
ization of this Ideal. They are fostering hopes that need Immor- 
tality for their realization. How is it that these two ideas — the 
Right and the Good, these two impulses — the love of Happiness and 
the sense of Obligation, are so harmonious? How is it that they 
conspire to the realization of what we feel, and cannot but feel, is the 
highest type of manhood ? How is it that we have these ideas of 
high and low ? What is the significance of moral Ideals ? What 
explanation is there of the trend of destiny toward their realization 
unless it be that there is an Infinite Being, whose nature is the norm 
of Right, whose law is the correlative of our sense of obligation, 
whose directing agency explains the path of history ? 



Though evolution were to give us an explanation of conscience, 
there is a teleology in human history and in the upward movements 
of the human spirit that finds no adequate explanation except 
through the hypothesis of an Infinite God. But, as was said a little 
while ago, this is not the old argument based upon the conscience. 
That old argument needs as its presupposition the intuitive basis of 
conscience. That old argument I believe in because I believe in the 
intuitive elements that underlie it. The question is : Given ought- 
ness as an intuitive idea, what is the most rational way of accounting 
for it ? It is not necessary to say that the voice of conscience is the 
voice of God, or that God is speaking to man when he realizes the 
idea of moral obligation. But on the supposition that God exists, 
that He stands related to man as a moral Ruler, that man is the sub- 
ject of his law, and that man is to be brought into harmony with 
the Divine will and nature, it is clear that man must know that cer- 
tain conduct is right, and that Right is obligatory. The sense of 
oughtness would then be a natural correlative of man’s relation to God 
as a subject of God’s moral government, and the sense of Rightness 
would be a natural correlative of his relation to God as the norm 
or model of his behavior. We cannot ask why we ought, per- 
haps, without getting involved in the difficulties of the infinite 
series. But we can explain oughtness without doing this. I can 
say that oughtness means in me the subjective counterpart of God’s 
government over me ; and that moral obligation is accounted for 
adequately and rationally by the hypothesis of God the infinite and 
righteous Ruler of the world. In this way the word ‘ ought ’ 
contributes to the theistic argument, and is corroborative of the 
theistic position. 

How far does Theism help us to arrive at the meaning of the sense 
of moral obligation ? This is the next question to be considered. 
It may appear to some that this question is not materially different 
from the one that has just been dealt with. Indeed, it may be 
said : ‘You prove the existence of God because oughtness implies 
a Being to whom you are under obligation, and you propose to 
prove that oughtness implies obligation to God because God is a 
moral Governor. You reason in a circle.’ This would be a just 
criticism if the only argumentative support of Theism were the idea 
of oughtness. But this, of course, is not the case. The feeling of 
obligation points directly, as has been said, to God as its objective 
correlative. Kant does not say this. He makes a moral argument 
for Theism, but not this, though many seem to think so. Acknowl- 
edging the force of the categorical imperative, Kant turns himself to 
the task of unfolding its meaning. But he does not make a theistic 



argument out of it. In the judgment of the majority of theistic writers, 
however, the feeling of moral obligation has no explanation short of 
the theistic hypothesis. And this interpretation of the idea of moral 
obligation is greatly strengthened by the fact that the existence of 
God is known through other channels. There are a great many who 
cannot hold, with Dr. Calderwood, that we have an a priori belief 
in one infinite, personal God, who nevertheless are quite ready to 
affirm that belief in God is so natural to man that he entertained it 
long before he constructed arguments in proof of the Divine existence. 
There is undoubtedly a constitutional tendency Godward, explain 
it as we may :■ let it be held that there is a process of unconscious 
inference in the belief, or that this constitutional belief is accounted 
for by the inspirational presence of God Himself in the soul, the fact 
remains that belief in the Divine existence was entertained prior to 
any reasoned or deliberately formulated defence of the Divine exist- 
ence. Theistic arguments do not originate Theism, they only 
defend an already existing Theism. Too much is made, however, of 
this constitutional tendency Godward when it is made the basis of a 
disparaging estimate of the theistic proofs. Proofs in the sense of 
demonstrations, of course, they are not ; but proofs to the extent 
of being rational defences of Theism they undoubtedly are. The 
argument a contingentia mundi, from order, from design, from con- 
science, from the idea of the Infinite, are all good arguments. They 
make Atheism absurd. They put Theism upon the basis of a rea- 
soned and a rationally defensible belief. Taking Theism, then, as a 
belief that is capable of rational defence by means of several inde- 
pendent lines of argument, we return to the consideration of ought- 
ness. Assuming, on the ground of the evidence that certifies the 
belief, that one infinite personal God exists, we say that since we 
stand related to God as the Author and Preserver of all things, we 
cannot help putting a meaning upon the idea of oughtness of which 
we find ourselves possessed. Accordingly, when we undertake to 
unfold the meaning of moral obligation we cannot ignore the fact 
that it is most suggestive of God and of God’s law ; we cannot be 
oblivious of the fact that we also believe in the Divine existence. 
We are obliged to say that the idea of oughtness within us is the 
direct counterpart of the Divine government without us. And so 
the idea that is corroborative of Theism will be likewise interpreted 
by Theism. 

But the meaning of oughtness is the second topic to be dealt with 
in this discussion. We naturally turn to Kant for help in this part 
of our undertaking. He gave us the expressive phrase, the Categori- 
cal Imperative. Writers who are very suspicious of his Critique of 



the Pure Reason are very well pleased with his Critique of the Prac- 
tical Reason. Theologians who think that he has helped the cause 
of scepticism by his criticism of the theistic proofs are never tired of 
praising his moral argument, and of quoting Kant as the great advo- 
cate of what some are disposed to call the strongest argument for the 
existence of God. Kant, in fact, is regarded by many as the man 
who has lifted up the standard of intuitional ethics, as the man 
who has made the stoutest protest against all forms of Epicurean and 
calculating morality. And when they quote Kant’s great expres- 
sions about the two things that filled him with awe — the starry sky 
above him and the moral law within him — they seem to be pretty 
sure that they have the great philosopher of Konigsberg on the side 
of intuitive morals and the ten commandments. It would be a sur- 
prise to some to be told that Kant’s ethical system, instead of being 
a reproduction of the ten commandments, has really only one com- 
mandment, and that in order to find application for that he has to 
fall back upon considerations of happiness and general well-being 
which he had previously repudiated '; and, moreover, that the logical 
outcome of Kant’s doctrine of autonomy is the ethical individual- 
ism expressed in the words : Obey your conscience. 

This, however, is true, and it will become apparent as we go on. We 
cannot appreciate Kant’s explanation of oughtness without knowing 
something of his whole ethical system. Let us consider some of the 
salient points in that system, (i) Kant says there is nothing good 
but a good will. Of inclinations, tendencies, desires, feelings, Kant 
makes no mention in any way appreciative of their importance. He 
emphasizes will. To be good is to have a good will. There are 
systems of theology of American origin the authors of which, in all 
probability, owed little or nothing to Kant, in which the same em- 
phasis is laid upon the will. But it should be noticed that this 
sentence, “ nothing good but a good will,” is the corner-stone of the 
Kantian ethic. (2) “ An action done from duty derives its moral 
worth not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but Jp^Ahe 
maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on 1 
the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the princi- 
ple of volition by which the action has taken place without regard to 
any object of desire. ” Kant’s protest against all calculating morality 
is wrapped up in this sentence. It is common for writers to say” 
that the moral quality of an action resides in its motive, and as that 
is good or bad the action is good or bad. Kant does not say that. 
He says that there are a posteriori springs of action, and actions 
done with reference to them are not moral. A man, for example, 
gives money to an hospital. He may do it to gratify vanity, or 



because he is in deep sympathy with suffering and wishes to relieve 
it. But whether the motive be a selfish desire to advertise his be- 
nevolence or an unselfish desire to relieve suffering, his action has 
no moral worth. It is done with reference to the consequences. 
Moral action must be done at the bidding of an a priori dictate of 
the will. This a priori maxim of the will is a law, is a command, 
and, constituted as we are, means obligation. (3) And so Kant says 
that Duty is the necessity of acting out of respect to the law. Where 
there is a conflict between inclination and obligation the right rule, 
of course, is to follow obligation. But Kant’s dictum means more 
than that. It means that if inclination and obligation are parallel, 
so that in doing as I ought to do I do what I like to do, my action 
is deserving of no moral consideration if done because I like to do it. 
If I see a child overboard and debate the question of duty, hesitate 
and feel reluctant, but from a sense of duty jump overboard and save 
its life, I do a moral act. If, on the other hand, without having 
duty emerge into conscious thought — if because of a humane, an 
unarguing impulse, I go to the rescue, I am acting from inclination, 
not from a sense of duty, and my act has nothing moral about it. 
So that, if a man were to develop a character that would lead him 
impulsively, spontaneously and without hesitation to do what the 
law commands, while he would be the more sure on that account to 
do right acts at all times, he would by so much as he loved to do 
right abate his claims to be considered as acting morally. Duty, 
then, is acting out of respect for the law. What law ? If a given 
line of conduct is law for one it ought to be law for all. The law 
voices itself in the categorical imperative. What is it ? Kant says : 
(4) “ Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time 
will that it should become a universal law.” This is the way Kant 
finds universal morality. Right or wrong in each concrete case is 
determined ; by asking whether we should be willing to have the 
action proposed in each case made universal. Shall I make a prom- 
ise that I do not intend to keep ? Kant asks, What would be the 
result if every man were to do that ? My neighbor has means enough 
to live without working and he loves idleness. May he live in idle- 
ness ? Kant asks again, What would be the effect if everybody 
lived in idleness ? His test in every case is the inquiry whether the 
proposed course of conduct is capable of being made the rule for all 
men. If not, he decides against it. Many, we imagine, have 
applied Kant’s maxim who never learned it'from Kant and long be- 
fore they ever heard of Kant. Every year multitudes act in obedi- 
ence to the maxim abstine a fabis, and keep away from the polls ; and 
every year the argument is used against those who do not vote, that 



if everybody should act as they do vve should be in a bad way 
politically. Those who say this are really repeating Kant’s categor- 
ical imperative. The objection to Kant’s position here is so obvi- 
ous that it cannot but occur to every reader. Hegel criticised Kant 
long ago, and Schurman has criticised him recently in similar terms. 
The point of these criticisms is that in spite of his repudiation of a 
calculating morality, Kant has surrendered to Utilitarianism. There 
is no room for doubt on this head. Why, for instance, may I not 
let my neighbor’s family starve ? Their poverty is no concern of 
mine. Perhaps the human race will be all the stronger if the weak 
go to the wall, and if this attempt to interfere with the law of the 
survival of the fittest by seaside excursions for poor people’s teeth- 
ing children were abandoned. Why is it wrong for me to refuse 
sympathy and help ? Because I cannot make that refusal a universal 
maxim. Why not ? Why should it not be a universal maxim ? 
What is Kant’s answer ? Let us remember Kant says that when I do 
duty I do it without regard to consequences ; I must not consult 
personal advantage or the advantage of others ; I must not be 
moved by inclination. Why not make it, then, a universal maxim 
that poverty and distress may be neglected ? Because, says Kant, 
if it be made universal I may be the first to suffer : “ Cases might 

occur in which he would have the need of the love and sympathy of 
others, and in which by such a law of nature sprung from his own 
will he could deprive himself of all hope of the aid he desires.” The 
bottom drops out of the morality based upon duty for duty’s sake, 
as Kant preaches it. He tells us that we must do duty for duty’s 
sake, must act out of respect for the law and not from inclination or 
calculation of consequences. We ask him to state the law, and he 
says : Act only on a maxim fit to be universal. We ask him to give 
us a maxim fit to be universal, and he replies by giving us one that 
proves its fitness for universality by being conducive to personal 
advantage or general well-being. His ethic as to form is intuitional 
and of the “high priori” order, disdaining calculation and regard for 
consequences. As to matter, however, it out-Mills Mill in Utilita- 
rianism. Now, a form is good provided it have content. But of 
what use is it without content? Act only on maxims fit to be uni- 
versal : this is a very pretty vehicle for moral precepts to ride in. It 
glitters with the sheen of a severe simplicity. Outside and inside 
we read such confidence-inspiring mottoes as : Duty for duty's 
sake ; The autonomy of the will ; Down with Utilitarianism. The 
Mill coach, the Bentham coach and even the somewhat modern 
Spencer coach, look small and uninviting alongside of Kant’s. And 
Kant sits on the box with an air that seems to say, ‘ None of your 



common passengers for me.’ Let us see who gets in. Here is 
maxim number four of the ten commandments, and here are 
numbers six and seven and eight. They all give Kant the go-by. 
These are maxims fit to be universal, but they have too much digni- 
ty to submit their claims to universality to empirical tests. They 
come in their own right, taking orders from an infinite norm of 
right. Their rightness, and therefore their worthiness of all accep- 
tation does not depend upon the rules that we are taught to apply 
in the Kantian ethics. The Kantian coach is likely to drive away 
empty,' beautiful in form but void of contents ; or else, which is the 
other alternative, it will force Mill and Bentham out of the business, 
and Kant will crack his whip as he drives off with a lot of plebeian 
passengers in the shape of ethical maxims gathered from utilitarian 

There is, however, another question in regard to which we natu- 
rally desire information. The assertion that duty consists in acting 
out of respect to the law makes it necessary, as we have seen, to ask 
what the law is ; it is not less necessary to ask what is the source of 
the law. And upon this subject Kant says : (5) “ The autonomy of 
the will is the sole principle of all moral laws and of all duties which 
conform to them ; on the other hand, heteronomy of the will not 
only cannot be the basis of any obligation, but is, on the contrary, 
opposed to the principle thereof, and to the morality of the will.” 
It is not difficult to see what Kant means here. The will must be 
self-legislative and not take its law from another. There is a sense 
in which this is true. Suppose, for example, the law is, “ Thou 
shalt not steal,” and the justification of this law is that regard for 
property has been found, in the long run, to be advantageous to the 
individual as well as the community. This law is not the outcome 
of my will exercising its autonomy, but is a generalization coming to 
me from without, and seeking to control my actions by considera- 
tion of consequences. Clearly, if I am honest, I am honest because 
it pays to be honest. Suppose that the law takes the form of a com- 
mand from the sovereign power against smuggling. I, for example, 
am returning from a European trip, and there are various articles 
more or less portable and possibly capable of being kept from the 
eyes of the Custom-House officers. I am disposed to run the risk, 
but, on the whole, think it not wise. I have complied with the law. 

I have not bought the laces and gloves and jewelry and other things 
that would have assured me a fond greeting on this side the sea. 
But why ? Because I was afraid of being detected. I did duty not 
out of respect to law, but out of regard to consequences. If, how- 
ever, from the secret places of my soul there had come the com- 



mand, ‘ Thou shalt not break the law of the land,’ I would have done 
duty for duty’s sake. Let us, then, go further. We receive a com- 
mand from God imposing the duty of chastity. That law can come 
from no higher source ; we know it does come from that source. 
Suppose, however, that one admits that this is God’s law, and is still 
under strong temptation to violate it. He says, ‘ This is God’s law, 
but if I break it what will happen ? ’ He remembers that God’s law 
is given with sanctions ; that a life of the kind contemplated can 
have but one end ; and so he says, ‘ I will not risk my soul, 1 will 
not peril my hereafter.’ What, now, is he doing? He is calculat- 
ing. He is showing prudence. He is putting the pleasure of this 
life in one scale, and the misery of the next life in the other. He is 
weighing the here and the hereafter. No one can deny that he is 
doing a wise thing, but he is not doing duty for duty’s sake. He is 
illustrating virtue of a kind contemplated by Paley in his well-known 
definition of virtue. He is utilitarian, and egoistic at that. He has 
been consulting his happiness, and he differs from the grossest 
Epicurean mainly in the fact that he has a higher conception of hap- 
piness and has in imagination extended the arena of happiness into 
eternity. He has what Bradley calls the music-hall conception of 
duty. But suppose that, besides recognizing the law as a command 
from without, this law were also uttered as a mandate of our own 
will, and were felt to be obligatory regardless of consequences. 
Then we should say that the seventh commandment is a law which 
has the force of a categorical imperative.' It is to be obeyed apart 
altogether from the question as to what effect disobedience will have 
upon us. It is easy to see what Kant means, therefore, by repudiat- 
ing heteronomy of will, and why he insists that moral law shall be 
self-legislated. His reason is that any lav/ which has its source out- 
side of self will always give rise to the question why we should obey 
it, and compliance with it will always be out of regard for conse- 
quences. That there is an element of truth, moreover, in Kant’s 
doctrine of the autonomy of the will can hardly be denied. On the 
other hand, let us see what comes of autonomy of will when left to 

I, then, am a sovereign, legislative will ; so we are to believe. 
Nothing is law for me that is not self-legislated. I am to obey law, 
but only such law as I first make. There are several difficulties here. 

I legislate honesty, it is true, but suppose I legislate theft. Then 
duty consists in acting out of respect to the law of theft. What is 
to tell me that honesty is fit and theft unfit to be legislated ? I 
must settle that in one of two ways. I must have a supreme norm 
of right, or else I must take the empirical way of finding out what is 



best by asking whether it is the honest community or the thievish 
community that I prefer to live in. If I take the latter plan I sur- 
render my a priori morality, and am no better than Spencer, Mill, 
and the empiricists generally. This is exactly what Kant does. If 
I seek for a norm of Right I make a ccncession to heteronomy. I 
pay deference to an external will. This is exactly what, as a Theist, 
I am bound to do. And this only shows that we must have a the- 
istic basis for morality, or else accept some form of the happiness 
theory of ethics. Kant’s attempt to find a via media utterly fails. 

Again, I am to legislate the command that I am to obey. This is 
Kant’s dictum. Then everybody must do the same thing. And 
yet I am to legislate maxims fit for universal application. When I 
say ‘ I ought,’ I mean you and everybody ought. When you say ‘ you 
$ught,’ you mean that I and everybody ought. This is all very well, 
provided we all hit upon the same maxims. But it is quite possible 
that we shall not, and if not, then what ? I know I do right, let us 
suppose, when I do what my will legislates, no matter how much 
others may differ from me, and I know that in declining to do as I 
do they do wrong. To be sure there are compensations in connection 
with this flexible and egoistic morality, for if I think that the world 
is wrong the world will take revenge upon me by thinking that I 
am insane. We are in the midst of difficulties, but they are the 
outcome of the Kantian ethic. Kant’s great desire to save his maxim 
of ‘duty for duty’s sake’ has led him astray. His ethical system 
says, ‘ Obey the moral law' out of respect to the law.’ If you ask 
what the moral law is, it is replied, ‘ Act according to maxims fit to 
be universal.’ If we ask who is to say what maxims are fit to be 
universal, the natural answer is, ‘ Every man must settle that for 
himself.’ Fichte, therefore, says, ‘Do what you think is right;’ 
and in saying this Fichte is carrying Kant’s doctrine to its logical 

The law, being given by the will of each individual in the exercise 
of its autonomy, it is natural to ask why it is not obeyed. Kant 
attempts an answer to this question, and it is the final explanation 
of Kayt’s idea of oughtness. These are his words : “ What makes 
categorical imperatives possible is this, that the idea of freedom 
makes me a member of an intelligible world, in consequence of 
which, if I were nothing else, all my actions zuould always conform 
to the autonomy of the will ; but as I at the same time intuite my- 
self as a member of the world of sense, they ought so to conform, 
and this categorical ought implies a synthetic a priori proposition, 
inasmuch as, besides my will as affected by sensible desires, there is 
added further the idea of the same will, but as belonging to the 



world of the understanding, pure and practical of itself, which con- 
tains the supreme condition according to reason of the former will.” 
According to the teaching of this passage, man sustains a relation 
to reason and a relation to sense. Looked at from one point of 
view, man is simply a part of nature, nature being the word that, 
stands for the mechanical articulation of phenomena which are succes- 
sively conditioning and conditioned. If we wish to explain any event 
in the outward world, such as the position of a grain of sand or the 
growth of a vegetable, we account for it by its antecedents. These 
antecedents existing, the phenomena could not be otherwise than they 
are. We say, in other words, that phenomena are caused. Now, if 
we can account for physical change in this way, why not for mental 
change ? Why are my actions not predictable ? Why do they not j 
come under the same law of antecedent and consequent ? Kant 
says that as phenomenon man is a part of nature. In one sense he 
and all his actions belong to the sensible world ; and if that were all 
there could be no morality, no propriety in categorical imperatives. 
You might as well say ought to the north wind. But this is not all 
of man. Besides being a part of nature, he is above nature. He 
belongs to the intelligible world. He is phenomenon — you see that 
part of him ; he is also noumenon — out of sight, that part of him is, 
but it is still real. And in this super-sensible sphere man is free. If 
man belonged only to the intelligible world, then all his actions 
would conform to the principle of the autonomy of the will. He 
would not only legislate, but he would obey. One would think that 
the will that legislates would obey, since it is the same will. Yes, 
in a sense, and in a sense, too, not the same will. It is the will con- 
sidered as Intelligible, belonging to the world of Reason, that is 
sovereign ; it is the will considered as belonging to the world of 
sense, as, in fact, a part of nature that is subject. As Schurman 
puts it, interpreting Kant, “ Man as phenomenon receives the law ; 
man as noumenon gives it.” Here, then, is the self or will in the 
sphere of reason giving law to self or will in the sphere of sense, and 
encountering opposition' — the opposition that comes from the inch- ' 
nations and the desires. This opposition emphasizes the command. 
The emphasized command is a sense of obligation, a feeling of 
oughtness. This feeling is not only a recognition of the Imperative, 
but is its recognition with a consciousness of reluctance. It will be 
very difficult to accept or perhaps even to understand Kant’s distinc- 
tion between the phenomenal self and the noumenal self, and yet it 
is easy to follow him when he says that the feeling of oughtness is 
evidence of opposition to the law. We can easily imagine that if 
our whole nature were attuned to the law, if all our inclinations were 



in harmony with the law, we should not be so conscious of obliga- 
tion. Hence Kant can very consistently say that an act done with- 
out regard to law, though done in accordance with law, is not moral. 
It is not infra-moral. It transcends morality. It is supra-moral. 
A being wholly in sympathy with right is a holy being, but not, in 
Kant's judgment, a moral being. We can say what God will do, 
and, seeing that his nature is holy, must do, but not what God 
ought to do. Kant says this. And so, though it may seem to 
be paradoxical, there may be truth in the statement that the 
more moral a man becomes the less moral he is, and that the climax 
of morality would be the abolition of morality. This, however, only 
means that the man who makes such a statement has chosen to limit 
morality to conduct done out of respect for law as law, and to 
maintain that the idea of oughtness, whenever realized in conscious- 
ness, carries with it some element of opposition to law. It will then 
follow that while the growth of holy character implies a growing 
inclination toward good which insures the doing of good, it is at the 
same time in every stage of it a step in the direction of supra-moral- 

The Kantian ethic is very different from the Hegelian ethic, yet 
in his account of the idea of oughtness Kant seems to have been 
very closely followed by some who are trying to revive Hegelianism 
in England. If, for example, in place of the phenomenal self and 
the noumenal self of which Kant speaks, we substitute a finite and a 
universal self, we shall have the basis upon which Bradley constructs; 
his very interesting “Ethical Studies.’’ With Bradley, as with 
Hegelians in general, the end of morality is “ self-realization,” self- 
realization in a goodwill. And the idea of oughtness is simply the 
indication of a struggle between the good and the bad self, is simply 
an indication of the difficulty — yet of the obligation— of realizing the 
universal self. It is like reading Kant over again to find Bradley 
saying, “No one ever was or could be perfectly moral ; and if he 
were he would be moral no longer. Where there is no imperfection 
there is no ought. Where there is no ought there is no morality. 
Morality aims at the cessation of that which makes it possible ; it is 
the effort after non-morality, and it presses forward beyond itself to 
a super-moral sphere, where it ceases, as such, to exist.” 

For the Universal Self which the finite self is striving to realize, 
and with which, in a sense, it is identical, substitute the word God. 
Say that man is seeking to be like God, or that God is seeking 
expression in and through the organs of man’s personality, and we 
have a religious but an Hegelianized interpretation of oughtness. 

It is not necessary to resort to the transcendental conception of the 



noumenal or the universal self in order to account for a matter appa- 
rently so simple as that of moral obligation. And yet there are 
undoubtedly valuable ideas in the ethical systems just referred to, 
which may be of use to us in the moral problem with which we are 
dealing. Unless our nature enunciate the moral law we can have 
no other morality than one of convenience and expediency. Kant’s 
doctrine of the autonomy of the will teaches a great truth ; but, 
after all, it is only the truth that a command, though the Lord’s 
command, coming to us from without, would not make us moral 
beings unless we had a moral nature. An external command oper- 
ating upon us through our fears might control conduct, but the 
conduct would not be moral. To be moral it must be self-legis- 
lated ; that is, the command must reach us through the conscience. 
We must be able to say, ‘We ought. ’ What is the feeling of ought- 
ness, indeed, but the autonomy of the will in exercise ? 

On the other hand, it is just as true that a law that had no higher 
sanction or authority than the individual will would not suffice. It 
might be said that, since I felt the obligation, the obligation was 
there, and that ended the matter. But it would not end the matter. 
I might feel the obligation, but I should examine the feeling, and if I 
found that it emanated from no higher source than my own will, and 
referred to no moral system outside, I should probably feel that this 
subjective morality which claims to be only regulative could not be 
even that. And so autonomy in and of itself is an unsatisfactory 
explanation of oughtness. It is not in autonomy alone or in heter- 
onomy alone that the true explanation is found, though there is 
truth in both. So, too, there is truth in the statement that morality 
has self-realization for its end, for the ‘ ought to be’ implies an ‘ is 
not’ that is obligatory. 

Nothing is gained by leaving the metaphysic of ethic that Theism 
suggests for that which Kant or Hegel will give us. The elements 
of truth which their systems contain are more simply expressed and 
more rationally accounted for when we adopt the common Christian 
doctrine of the moral government of God. We feel that we ought : 
we also believe in God. If God exist and we are subjects of His 
moral government, it is natural that He should give us a moral 
nature, and that moral laws should issue from that nature. The 
sense of obligation is witness to our subjection to moral law, which, 
notwithstanding the autonomy of our will, has its abiding justifica- 
tion in the nature of God, and is fit for universal application. As 
Dr. Martineau well says, in his “ Types of Ethical Theory” : ‘‘If 
it be true that over a free and living person nothing short of a free 
and living person can have higher authority, then it is certain that a 



‘ subjective ’ conscience is impossible. The faculty is more than part 
and parcel of myself ; it is the communion of God’s life and guiding 
love entering and abiding with an apprehensive capacity in myself. 
Here we encounter an ‘ objective ’ authority without quitting our 
own centre of consciousness ; an authority which at once sweeps 
into the wildest generality without asking a question of our fellow- 
men ; for an excellence and sanctity which He recognizes and 
reports has its seat in eternal reality, and is not contingent on our 
accidental apprehension ; it holds its quality wherever found, and 
the revelation of its authority to one mind is valid for all.” 

Princeton. FRANCIS L. PATTON. 




More than twenty years ago Dr. Livingston, ol Stair, brought out his valu- 
able edition of “ The Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1635.” In the Appendix he 
gave at full length, verbatim et literatim, a remarkable series of Collects, one 
hundred and forty-nine in number, which appeared under the title of “ Prayers 
on the Psalms” in the edition of the “ Psalter and Book of Common Order,” 
published in Edinburgh in 1595.* Dr. Livingston spoke in high terms, as he 
was well warranted in doing, of the merits of these Collects, but stated his 
inability to trace their origin, f Other investigators in the same field were 
equally at a loss. 

In a little work on “ The Worship of the Presbyterian Church,” which I 
published in 1884, I drew special attention to these Scottish Collects, and edited 
a selection from them with some introductory remarks. J But as to their 
authorship or origin, I found myself still in the dark. Dr. Livingston had 
stated that ” the only known precedent” for such ‘‘ prayers on the Psalms” was 
to be found in the “ Collectes” in the English Psalter, commonly known as that 
of Archbishop Parker (who died in 1575). But this clew did not lead to any , 
result. The one series of Collects might possibly have suggested the other ; 
but the prayers themselves, so far as I was able to compare them, seemed alto- 
gether different, the Scottish ones being decidedly superior in simplicity, fervor, 
and power of expression. I applied to Dr. Sprott, of North Berwick, as being 
admittedly one of our foremost authorities in this field of research. But he, at 
the date of his last letter to me on the subject, was unable to throw any light 
on the question of the authorship or sources of the Scottish “ Prayers on the 

In the spring of this year (1885), however, I made an unexpected discovery. 
When consulting some books in the old Library of Innerpeffray, on the banks 
of the Earn in Perthshire, I came upon a beautiful little copy of an early 
edition of Marot and Beza’s French Psalter, published, as usual, along with 

* The Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1635 : Reprinted, with Dissertations, Notes and 
Fac-similes. Glasgow, 1864. Append, ix-xviii. 

t P- 37- 

% Bannerman, “ Worship of the Presbyterian Church, with Special Reference to the 
Question of Liturgies.” Edinburgh, 1884. Pp. 91-1x3. 



Calvin’s Liturgy and Catechism, and with the Confession of Faith of the French 
Reformed Church. It contains also “ An Index to find out the Psalms, accord- 
ing to the occurrence of the different circumstances in which the Church of God 
or the private believer may find themselves ; in which consisteth the true use of 
the Psalms.” The little volume is bound in vellum, and has the name of 
“ Patrick, Master of Drummond,” written in a bold hand on the title-page. 
I was struck at once by one part of the title : ” Les CL Pseaumes de David, 
mis en rime Franfoise par Clement Marot et Theodore de Beze. Avec la prose 
en marge, comme elle est en la Bible, el un Oraison a la fin d un chacun Pseaume 
par M. Augustin Marlorat. A Paris. Par Pierre Haultin. 1567.” 

On turning to these “ oraisons,” the secret of the Scottish Collects of 1595 
was told at once. Here they were, sentence for sentence and word for word, 
beyond all question. A more minute inspection showed, indeed, that occa- 
sionally the Scottish translator had inserted a word or two, whether to bring out 
the full meaning of a pregnant phrase in the original, or for the sake of rhyth- 
mical effect, or to avoid a possible ambiguity, as in “ the sacrifice of His body 
[on the Cross]. ” [See first Collect below.] Several of the “ double phrases,” 
to which I referred in editing the Collects (p. 94), are thus accounted for. But 
as a rule the translation is as close as it is vigorous and idiomatic. 

I give two specimens of the correspondence : 

1. (French original of 1567.) Oraison a la fin de Ps. 40. 

Seigneur, qui par ta Providence conduis et gouvernes toutes choses, et qui 
nous as envoye ton Fils bien aime pour nous delivrer de peche et de la mort 
par le sacrifice de son corps : fay que nous recognoissons tousieurs ce benefice 
inestimable et qu'ayons incessamment la bouche ouverte pour annoncer tes 
louanges a un chacun par iceiuy ton Fils Jesus Christ nostre Seigneur. Amen. 

(Scottish translation of 1595.) A prayer upon the fortieth Psalme. O Lord 
that be thy Providence gvdis and governis all thingis, and that hes send to us 
thy weil-beloved Sonne, for to delvver us from sinne and deith be the oblatioun 
of his bodie on the Croce : graunt that wee continuallie may acknawledge this 
thy great and inestimabill benefite, and that wee ever haif our heartis and 
mouthes open to pronounce thy praises amang all men be thy selfsame Sonne, 
Jesus Christ our Saviour. So be it. 

2. (French original of 1567.) Oraison a la fin de Ps. 2. 

Pere celeste et tout puissant, qui nous as donne et consacre ton Fils unique 
pour Roy et Seigneur, vueille dissiper par ta sagesse admirable toutes les 
entreprises qui se dressent contre luv par tout le monde, et faire que nous 
profitions tellement en sa saincte doctrine qu'en touts crainte et reverence 
nous te puissons servir, pour finalement jouir du souverain bien que nous 
esperons par iceiuy ton Fils Jesus Christ. Amen. 

(Scottish translation of 1595.) A prayer upon the second Psalme. Almighty- 
God and hevenlie Father, that hes given unto us thv dear Sone to be our lord 
and King : grant, we beseik thee, that thou would destroy and dissipate be thy 
mervelous wisedom al enterprvses devysed and addressed against him through- 
out the haill warld : and make us so to profite and grow in his halie law and 



doctrine that in all fear and reverence we may serve thee : that in the end we 
may attain to that endles joy, quhilk we hope for to receave through the samin 
Jesus Christ thy Sonne. So be it. 

So much, then, is established beyond doubt ; these Collects came to Scotland 
from Marlorat and the French Huguenot Psalter. It remains to ask : Who 
was Marlorat ? When and how did these Collects first find a place under his 
name in the French Psalter ? And was he himself the author, or rather, to 
some extent at least, the compiler of these prayers ? 

To the first of these queries there is no difficulty in giving an answer. Few 
among the continental divines of the sixteenth century enjoyed a higher reputa- 
tion for learning and soundness in the faith than Augustin Marlorat. His 
Latin commentaries on various books of Scripture were highly esteemed, and 
passed through many editions. Several of his works were translated into Eng- 
lish. Students of Owen, Flavel, and others of the Puritan divines will remem- 
ber how often and with what respect the authority of “ Marloratus” is appealed 
to. Born in Lorraine in 1506, at one time, like Luther, an Augustinian 
monk, and retaining to the end the name of the patron of his order which he 
took on entering the convent, Marlorat became eventually one of the most 
trusted friends and fellow-workers of Calvin and Beza in the Swiss Reformation. 
He was pastor first at Crassier, near Lausanne, and afterward at Yevey. In 
1560 he was called to labor in the important centre of Rouen. It was from 
that place that Marlorat went with Beza to the famous “ Colloquy of Poissy” 
(1561), in which he took a distinguished part. In the following year the wars 
of religion broke out in France. Rouen was besieged and taken by the Roman 
Catholic troops. Marlorat had remained at his post, ministering to the spiritual 
wants of his flock during the siege. On the capture of the town he fell into the 
hands of the enemy, and was ruthlessly condemned to death, and executed in 
the year 1562. In the long list of honored ministers of the Gospel of Christ in 
France who sealed their testimony with their blood, few names called forth, not 
in France only, but in reformed Christendom, a warmer feeling of love and 
reverence than that which gathered round the name of Augustin Marlorat. 

All who have studied the stirring and tragic history of the Huguenots in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries — to which special attention has been recently 
drawn by the occurrence of the bicentenary of the Revocation of the Edict of 
Nantes — know well the place held in that history by the old French version of 
the Psalms in metre. From the very year after that in which Rouen fell 
onward for more than a century, out of the many editions of the French Psalter 
there are few which do not contain at the close of each Psalm ‘ ‘ a prayer made 
by M. Augustin Marlorat.” It is surely touching to see how “ the Church 
under the Cross,” through all these terrible years, nourished her spiritual life on 
the Book ol Psalms, and with prayers that came to her from the hand of one of 
her own martyrs. 

In the bibliographical part of M. Felix Bovet’s most valuable and interesting 
work on the history of the Psalter of the Reformed Churches, a full descriptive 
list is given of all the editions of the French Protestant Psalter, from 1541 to the 



present day. No less than two hundred and nineteen of these editions were 
published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The first in which any 
reference to prayers on the Psalms appears is the Psalter of 1561 (s. 1 .), which 
contains “ brieves et saintes Oraisons nouvellement adjoustees en la fin de 
chacun Psaume. ” The Paris edition of the following year has “ les Oraisons 
de chacun Pseaume.” The first edition in which the name of Marlorat appears 
is that published at Lyons in 1563. It contains “ un Oraison a la fin d’un 
chacun Pseaume faite, par M. Augustin Marlorat.” * 

M. Bovet, with whom I communicated on the subject last summer, has 
kindly favored me with information and references about Marlorat. Of much 
of this I cannot avail myself here. With respect to the Collects on the Psalms, 
M. Bovet says, writing from Grandchamps, Neuchatel, in July last : “ Only a 
small number of the Psalters — three or four, I believe— from 1561 to 1562, are 
in existence. They do not indicate where they were printed. The ‘ Oraisons’ 
which are annexed to each Psalm were not yet written by Marlorat. It was, no 
doubt, an attempt made, which Marlorat’ s ‘ Oraisons’ threw into the shade ; 
for they were soon in great favor with the Reformed, owing to the reputation 
gained by Marlorat through his commentaries and the important part he played 
in the ‘ Colloque de Poissy,’ and especially on account of his martyrdom 
(1562). Hence, after that time no other ‘Oraisons’ than his were printed 
with the Psalms. They are still found in several editions of the seventeenth 
century, down at least to 1674.” 

M. Bovet is disposed to hold that Marlorat was “ the original and the only 
author” (‘‘ le primitif et le seul auteur”) of the prayers which bear his name. 
With respect to many of them I have little doubt that this is true. With respect 
to others I am inclined to think — although I must not pause to indicate here 
any grounds for the opinion — that Marlorat availed himself of previously exist- 
ing materials in the Pre-Reformation liturgies, with suitable modifications ; so 
that his “ prayers on the Psalms” were, to some extent, like their predecessors 
in the Psalter of 1561, ‘‘newly adjusted” (nouvellement adjoustees), rather 
than in the strict sense “ new.” 

The same principle of adaptation had been acted on by the author of the 
interesting hymn, the “ Salutation a Jesus Christ,” which is ascribed to Calvin, 
and which arose at least in the circle of his intimate friends and fellow-workers, 
and was included by him in the French Protestant Psalter and Sendee-book of 
1545. The leading thought in the ‘‘Salutation” and several of the verses, 
with slight modifications, are taken from an old Latin hymn addressed to the 
Virgin Mary, and well known in the Church of Rome under the title of “ Salve 
Regina.” f 

But apart from the subordinate question of the remoter origin of some of these 
striking Collects, it is surely interesting to be able now to trace them back to 

* Bovet, “ Histoire du Psautier des Eglises Reformees.” Neuchatel, 1872. Pp. 

f Comp. Cath. Presbyterian for Dec., 1879, pp. 458-60, with Daniel, “Thesaurus 
Hymnol.,’’ ii. 231. 


the great formative period of the Reformation. The Church of the Huguenots 
received them into her ancient Psalter and Service-book from a martyr’s hand. 
From France and Switzerland they passed to Scotland, and took a like place 
with us in the days of Andrew Melville and Robert Bruce, of Edinburgh. 
These “prayers on the Psalms” furnish a fresh evidence of the close and 
cordial relations which subsisted from the first between the Reformed churches 
of the Continent and the Church of Scotland, and how the best thoughts and 
words of their most honored ministers, whether in the way of instruction or 
devotion, were regarded as forming part of the common heritage of Reformed 
Christendom. D. D. Bannerman. 

Perth, Scotland. 


The excavations in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, which, during 
the last forty years and more, have yielded materials for reconstructing the 
ancient history of Western Asia, have been made entirely by the English and 
the French. Turkey, which controls the soil, does not explore it. Germany 
has studied the tablets more scientifically than any other nation, but has not 
dug them up. The German centres of art and learning have no large Assyrio- 
logical collections. No fourth European nation has even as much as Germany. 

The United States yield to no people in widespread interest in these discov- 
eries — stimulated and sustained by the relations of Assyriology to the Bible — 
and the study of cuneiform inscriptions is going on briskly among us, but we 
have made no systematic attempt to increase the stock of original materials for 
this study which the thoughtfulness of a missionary, and the enterprise of a few 
men of means, have deposited in several of our colleges and museums ; we had 
until recently done nothing in Babylonia or Assyria to prove that Americans 
have not lost interest in Bible lands, or forgotten how to explore. 

“ The Wolfe Exploring Expedition to Babylonia’’ was the outgrowth of a 
desire to make good what had been lacking. Of some of the preliminary steps 
a brief account was given in this Review for July, 1884. It was there stated 
that the movement began among a company of gentlemen interested in 
Oriental studies and members of the American Oriental Society. It first 
assumed definite shape in the autumn of 1883. The Archaeological Institute 
of America countenanced and adopted it, and the plan was realized through the 
munificence of Miss Catharine Lorillard Wolfe, who alone contributed the 
$5000 required for its accomplishment, and from whom the expedition took its 

It was distinctly intended to be an expedition for the purpose of preliminary 
study and survey, without which it was felt that no well-organized and pro- 
longed efforts in this field could be made. It has been crowned with success 
even beyond what many had ventured to hope. 

Several parts of the country to be visited present special attractions to the 
explorer. Among these the Mesopotamian plain west of Mosul, dotted with 



mounds that doubtless mark the site of ancient cities, the mountainous region 
of Elam, and the borders of it, where exploration lias been only hasty and im- 
perfect, and the territory of Babylonia itself, are prominent. Insuperable diffi- 
culties bar the way into Elam, where the traveller’s life is insecure ; the upper 
Mesopotamian cities were less ancient, and promise less of interest than those 
grouped about the seat of the oldest Shemitic civilization ; to the latter, there- 
fore, Babylonia itself, it was resolved to direct the efforts of the Wolfe Expedi- 

The Rev. William Hayes Ward, D. D., managing editor of th & Independent, 
was prevailed upon to head the little party, and he sailed from New York for 
Liverpool, September 6th, 1884. After two weeks at the British Museum in 
London, the chief depository of antiquities from Asia, and less than a week in 
Paris, examining the collections of the Louvre, he travelled by way of Munich, 
Vienna, and Budapest to Constantinople, choosing the land route, and a carriage 
ride through Bulgaria, to avoid quarantine. A few days in Constantinople 
sufficed to procure a firman allowing unrestricted travel and exploration, 
but not excavation. Here he was joined by Mr. j. H. Haynes, a graduate of 
Williams, who had been an instructor in Robert College, and had acquired, 
at Assos and in Asia Minor, considerable experience as an archaeologist, and 
particularly as a photographer for archaeological purposes. The two left Con- 
stantinople October 30th, and proceeded by water to Smyrna, where they were 
met by the third member of the party, Dr. J. R. S. Sterrett. Dr. Sterrett is 
a graduate of the University of Virginia, and spent several years in Ger- 
many in archaeological study, taking the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
at Munich. He was associated with Mr. Joseph T. Clarke in the excava- 
tions at Assos (1881-83), was connected with the American School of Clas- 
sical Studies at Athens as a student during its first year (1882-83), and has 
made archaeological journeys in Asia Minor. He crossed from Athens to 
Smyrna for the purpose of joining Dr. Ward and Mr. Haynes. These three 
constituted the exploring party. The hope entertained earlier, that Mr. Joseph 
T. Clarke might himself become a member of it, was not realized, owing to 
the pressure of work occasioned by the Report of the Assos Expedition. 

From Smyrna the route of the party took them round the coast of Asia 
Minor to Mersin, in Cilicia, where they landed November 3d, and took a car- 
riage to Tarsus and Adana, proceeding thence to Marash, and after the forma- 
tion of a caravan of their own, via Aintab to Jerabis, the site of Carchemish, 
the old Hittite capital on the Euphrates. Hittite remains were observed at 
various points. Crossing the Euphrates, they travelled to Urfa, Diarbekr, 
and Mardin, and so, through the Tfir Abdin to Mosul, which they reached 
December 13th. Five days there allowed the horses to rest and the 
explorers to visit the famous excavations of Kuyundjik, Nebi Yunus and 
Khorsabad. December 1 8 th they left Mosul for Baghdad, passing down the 
left bank of the Tigris, and visiting Nimroud (ancient Calah) and Erbil 
(Arbela) on the way. Bagdad was reached December 30th, and two weeks 
were spent there in gathering information and preparing for a fresh start. 


Leaving Baghdad January 12th, the party rode past Abu Habba (commonly 
identified with Sippara or Sepharvaim) to Hillah, which for a week was made 
the headquarters for excursions to the various ruins of Babylon and Borsippa. 
From Hillah the course lay eastward to El Hymar, and thence along the course 
of the Shatt-en-Nil to Niffer (Nippur), southward to Hammam, and eastward 
once more to Tell Loh, famous within the past few years by the brilliant dis- 
coveries of the most ancient Babylonian sculptures and inscriptions, made by 
M. de Sarzec (now French Consul-General at Baghdad). From Tell Loh the 
party moved southward again to the junction of the Shatt-el-Hai with the 
Euphrates, crossed the Euphrates and visited Mugheir (Ur-Casdim), the south- 
ernmost point reached. Dr. Sterrett had been disabled by illness soon 
after leaving Mosul, and the fatigues and exposures of the journey had so far 
affected Dr. Ward’s health that he thought it best not to attempt to reach Abu 
Sharein, the site of the famous South Babylonian capital, Eridu. On the 
return the western bank of the Euphrates was followed, with a digression across 
Warka (Erech) to Hillah, whence the explorers rode back to Baghdad via Abu 
Habba, Dr. Ward taking pains to visit Tell Ibrahim (Cutha) by the way. Two 
weeks more in Baghdad prepared them for the last great ride. Leaving Bagh- 
dad March 1 8th, they went by way of Akerkuf to Sakhlawieh, thence up the 
Euphrates, and so, via Ed Der and the Syrian desert, to Palmyra. Four days 
were spent here in taking photographs and surveys, and thence the march was 
continued to Damascus and Beirut, where it terminated, April 30th. After a 
day or two in Alexandria and Cairo, Dr. Ward returned through Paris and 
London, reaching New York June 20th, 1885. Dr. Sterrett and Mr. Haynes 
remained in the East. 

The results of the expedition are of great and varied interest. An incidental 
result is the gathering of new evidence with regard to the immense transform- 
ing influence of the work of missionaries, and particularly American mission- 
aries, in Asiatic Turkey — a work which reaches far beyond the number of 
actual converts, and makes these missionaries in a true sense the founders of a 
new civilization. (See Dr. Ward’s article, “ American Influence in Turkey,” 
in the Independent, February 5th, 1885.) 

Other secondary results are of archaeological value, although somewhat aside 
from the main purpose of the expedition. Such are the observation of Hittite 
remains, numerous and striking, affording great promise of the success likely 
to attend systematic search above ground and beneath it, the collection of inter- 
esting Syriac MSS. in the Tur Abdin, and of copies of Phoenician and other 
inscriptions at Palmyra. 

But if these things were left wholly out of the account the value of the 
expedition would be abundantly shown in the accomplishment of its chief 
objects : 

1. American scholars have now a definite source of information as to the 
country, its features, the best times for travel and exploration in it, and the 
modes of establishing and maintaining communication with those who can aid 
our museums in collecting objects for archaeological study. Dr. Ward has 



brought back vivid remembrances and wide practical knowledge which will be 
of service to many others beside himself. 

2. Hundreds of photographs were secured, and many seal-cylinders, in- 
scribed tablets, barrels, and other valuable additions to our knowledge of the 
art, mythology and language of the ancient inhabitants of Babylonia and 
Assyria. Some of these objects have been examined and described. (See 
Professor D. G. Lyon, Independent , September 3d and 10th, 1885 ; Dr. William 
Hayes Ward, Proceedings of American Oriental Society, October, 1885 ; 
American Journal of Archceology, No. III., etc.) Others are still awaiting the 
close study they deserve. There are unique specimens among them, and they 
all together constitute the most important collection of the kind in America. 

3. The expedition secured detailed knowledge of the present aspect of Baby- 
lonia. No travellers, except Loftus and Taylor, have done nearly so much in 
the way of gaining exact information of the ground, and while these and sub- 
sequent explorers, like Rassam' and De Sarzec, who were allowed to excavate, 
are as yet unrivalled in the discoveries made at particular points, the Wolfe 
Expedition has located, and to some extent surveyed, many mounds of which 
no record exists. It will suffice to mention the great mound of Anlar, on the 
Euphrates, a little south of Safeira and the Sakhlawieh River, visited by the 
party after they finally left Baghdad, which Dr. Ward is inclined to identify 
with one of the Sipparas that made up the dual Sepharvaim of the Bible. (See 
Dr. Ward’s article in Hebraica, January, 1886.) On these and other points 
connected with the expedition Dr. Ward himself will give full particulars in 
the reports which he is preparing for publication. Enough is already known to 
kindle the enthusiasm of those who believe the past can still teach something to 
the present. 

4. The expedition has secured fresh evidence that a vast amount still remains 
for the excavator to accomplish among these ancient ruins, and an understand- 
ing of what steps can immediately be taken — not, indeed, to excavate, for that 
the Turkish Government at present absolutely forbids — but to lay a still firmer 
foundation for worthy collections which may promote the study of Assyrian and 
Babylonian antiquities. Genuine tablets and cylinders are constantly offered 
for sale in European cities. Several thousand dollars a year, in judicious 
hands, could be well spent in securing numbers of these, which are now swal- 
lowed up by foreign institutions. The result would be not simply to give 
special direction to the studies of our Assyriologists, and not simply to minister 
to the curiosity of the people. It would arouse a deeper interest in the history 
of those old lands which were civilized when all other lands we know of, except 
Egypt alone, were barbarous ; from which the Hebrews came, and to which 
they were carried again as captives ; whose records on stone and clay and 
bronze have already unlocked mysteries of Hebrew history and Hebrew lan- 
guage that had long been sealed ; it would prepare the way for a hearty sym- 
pathy in the effort to send out from America an excavating party, when permis- 
sion can be gained for it to work, and for a generous support of its labors. 
By one channel or another ancient documents may reach us which shall lift the 


veil that hides precious secrets from us. We may learn more about the earliest 
people who established civilization in Babylonia, whether the “ Genesis tablets” 
were an inheritance from them, what they and their successors thought about 
the first home of man, the sacred tree, the serpent, and the entrance of sin into 
the world. Vexed questions of chronology and the relation between peoples 
may receive new light. We may get the clue to some remote but vital connec- 
tion of Greek art and learning with the great centres of intellectual life along 
the Euphrates. We may secure priceless treasures for the student of ancient 
nations in their campaigns and their manners, and for the student of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. Miss Wolfe’s generosity, beyond its immediate harvest, 
great as that is, has opened up these possibilities. Something can be done at 
once that may aid in realizing them. A sum of money, deposited with the 
authorities of one of our museums, or with the Archaeological Institute of 
America, for the purposes indicated above, can be disposed of with great 
advantage to Oriental and Biblical science. We hope to hear soon that it is in 
their hands. Francis Brown. 

New York. 




The Presbyterian Review enters upon the seventh year of its history. The 
Presbyterian Review Association have secured the services of Messrs. Charles 
Scribner’s Sons, who have taken a warm interest in the Reytew from the begin- 
ning, and who now propose to use the great resources of their publishing house 
for the increase of its circulation. The Association propose to improve the in- 
ternal character of the Review, and make it still more worthy of the support of 
the ministry and of intelligent laymen of the Presbyterian and Reformed 
churches which are represented in its management. The representative divines 
of the Presbyterian churches of Canada and Great Britain, as well as the United 
States, who are associated with the managing editors in the management of 
the Review, and whose articles from time to time appear in its pages, indicate 
the extent of the field of the Review and the amount of talent that may be used 
in it. The Presbyterian Review has as its field the Presbyterian world. 
The Presbyterian churches of the world are grow'ing nearer together. The 
Alliance of the Reformed churches and its Executive Commissions in Europe 
and America are doing an important work in promoting harmony. The Re- 
view will furnish its readers official information with regard to the work of the 
Alliance through two of its editors — Drs. Blaikie and Chambers — who repre- 
sent the British and American branches respectively. The Presbyterian churches 
are deeply interested in the work of foreign missions and the question of co- 
operation therein. It is proposed to give this matter careful consideration in a 
series of articles. The work of evangelization is of growing importance. An 
article on the Salvation Army by a competent hand will soon be given, and the 
whole subject of evangelization opened for discussion. The kindred topics of 
the Christian ministry, the necessity of ordination, and lay preaching, will be 
thoroughly considered by leading divines on both sides of the Atlantic. Without 
neglecting critical, historical, doctrinal* and ethical topics, it is proposed to lay 
more stress upon these themes of Practical Theology. The series of articles on 
the Revised Version will be continued, and a number of articles on doctrinal 
and ethical questions will be furnished by representative theological and phil- 
osophical writers. P'he editorial department will be enlarged. It is proposed 
to give our readers information with regard to the official action of all Presby- 
terian bodies throughout the world, and to discuss briefly the leading topics of 



the time. The critical notes will present the most recent discussions in biblical 
and historical study. The Book Reviews will be as concise and thorough as 
experienced critics can make them. In short, it is proposed to make the Re- 
view as useful as possible. We ask our friends to aid the publishers in extend- 
ing its circulation. An increased income would enable us to enlarge and im- 
prove the Review still further. Managing Editors. 


Increased attention has been given to the work of evangelization in recent 
years. A considerable number of evangelists ordained and unordained have 
arisen in Great Britain and America who have devoted themselves to this work. 
New questions of grave importance have arisen in the field of discussion, and 
the Church has been obliged to adapt herself to the new conditions and circum- 
stances. The need of evangelization as a distinct work of ministry has sprung 
from the marvellous growth of towns and cities in the present century, and the 
failure of parochial work to overtake the increased and heterogeneous popula- 
tion. The work of our churches has been divided on the theory that the local 
churches or parishes were to do the entire work of the Gospel in the districts in 
which they were situated, and that in the outer districts that were not provided 
with churches new churches or chapels should be erected as soon as possible 
by missionaries sent out for the purpose. 

But it has been found that this does not accomplish the work of reaching the 
heterogeneous population of the towns and- cities, for the simple reason that 
these people decline to attend the churches that are so kindly provided for 
them. The unevangehzed and the evangelized are intermingled. They unite 
in business, in politics, and in society, but they divide on questions of religion. 
If this were a division into denominations of Christians it would be of com- 
paratively trifling importance. But the division is really a more radical one — 
it is a division which separates Christians from those who are not Christians. 
The problem has thus become how to reach these masses of men and women 
who are not Christians, and who will not attend upon the means of grace, and 
who decline to put themselves under those influences which have been divinely 
appointed for their redemption. 

It seems to us that our churches are still under the influence of the old 
parochial idea of church work. They have not observed that the parish 
marked by civil or ecclesiastical boundaries has been transformed into a volun- 
tary society without any limits whatever. In the Established Churches of 
Europe the whole land is divided into dioceses and parishes, under the theory 
that every parish is to do the entire work of the Gospel for the people within it. 
It not only has a duty for those who attend upon the means of grace and con- 
tribute for the support of the Church, but its duty is none the less with those 
who neglect all these duties and privileges. The parish church is for every 
member of the parish. All have rights and privileges therein. 

If there were but one Church in the land, and that Church was established by 



law and regarded as the medium of grace for the entire population, then the 
parochial or territorial method of fTiurch work would be the most efficient. 
But the tyranny of the Established Churches in the several lands of Protestant- 
ism resulted in the separation of dissenting bodies and the multiplication of 
denominations of Christians, so that even in Great Britain, where the Free 
Churches and the Established Churches divide the population between them, it 
has become difficult to carry on the work of the Church on the parochial princi- 
ple. Active, aggressive, comprehensive work runs upon the rock of proselyt- 
ism and awakens conflict between the different religious bodies. There is a 
temptation, therefore, to avoid this rock and fall upon the other rock of attend- 
ing only to the professed adherents of the denomination or church, and neglect- 
ing those who do not profess adhesion to it. The number of such in villages 
and towns is small, but in cities they accumulate in vast masses. The diffi- 
culties which beset the practical working out of the territorial system in Great 
Britain become vastly greater in the United States, where there is no Established 
Church, and where denominations are greatly multiplied. It is difficult to 
determine with regard to the masses of the population whether they adhere to 
this or that denomination of Christians, or whether they are Christian at all. 
Local churches are bands of worshippers who have been associated by 
circumstances, and not by law or principle of any kind. The association is 
purely a matter of convenience, and changes are made at the caprice of the 
individual. There are hundreds of such churches in the larger cities which are 
divided into groups of different denominations. But there are large numbers, — 
vast masses of the people who do not adhere to any of these groups, and who 
for various reasons decline to associate with them. The churches are voluntary 
associations which are controlled in the interests of the association, with little 
regard to the larger interests of the Church of Christ. The unevangelized are 
scattered all over the cities and mingled with the Christian population in all 
walks of life. But they are in greater numbers and in more compact masses in 
the older and poorer sections of the cities. 

The problem that the Church has to solve is how to accomplish the work of 
evangelization. Strenuous efforts have been made by missionary Sunday- 
schools. These reach the children and retain a considerable portion of them. 
But a large proportion of them are not retained, and the parents and other 
adults remain unevangelized. 

Efforts are also made through Christian Associations and other voluntary 
organizations of various kinds. These reach sections of the population, but do 
not grasp the problem as a whole. 

Great efforts have been put forth in recent years through lay evangelists. 
Large halls have been occupied, and Christian workers have been massed for 
prayer and work, and great good has been accomplished. But these efforts are 
spasmodic ; they attract the unevangelized to halls, but it is claimed that they 
do not result in bringing any considerable numbers into connection with the 
churches, that their tendency is to create dissatisfaction with the means of grace 
in the hands of the Church, and to encourage irregularities, disorders and 



excesses of various kinds. Whether these complaints are just or not, it is evi- 
dent that no permanent work can be accomplished in these irregular ways. It 
is skirmishing with the problem. It is chiefly useful in calling the attention of 
the Church to it, and in preparing the. Church for the solution of it. 

The Salvation Army has been organized as a great evangelistic organization. 
This plan has an advantage in that it is comprehensive in aim, efficient in 
operation, and permanent in its work. But it is really another denomination 
of Christians with marked peculiarities, which are repulsive to some of the 
unevangelized, however attractive they may be to others. 

The organized Church of Christ has its work of evangelization to do, and it 
cannot afford to relinquish it to any voluntary associations whatever, or to any 
new organization of Christians. 

It ought not to be overlooked that every faithful minister is doing the work 
of an evangelist in a measure. He is not Content with his chief work of 
leading his people in their worship, and training them in the Scriptures, and 
dispensing to them the means of grace for their Christian nurture. His heart 
goes forth to the unevangelized to bring them to Christ. But too often he 
finds insurmountable obstacles in his way if he would seriously engage in the 
work of evangelization. It is necessary that the Church should make such 
changes in her methods as may be necessary to master the problem and do the 

It is a marked feature of the time that the two largest ecclesiastical bodies in 
New York City have undertaken this work of evangelization in a churchly way. 
The Protestant Episcopal Church has set apart Advent season for special evangel- 
istic services in a considerable number of churches in different sections of the 
city. Every effort has been put forth by advertisements, cards of invitation, house- 
to-house visitation, free seats, and earnest preaching, with attractive service, to 
induce the unevangelized to attend. Distinguished preachers and experienced 
ministerial evangelists from Great Britain and Canada and other cities of the 
United States were employed to assist the pastors. Such a comprehensive 
evangelistic work as this introduces a new era in the history of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of America. 

The Presbytery of New York unanimously adopted a still more comprehen- 
sive plan. The Presbytery was divided into six districts, and in each of these 
districts a church was selected as the centre of evangelization for the district. 
The pastor of the church is responsible for the management of the work, but 
he is aided by five other pastors of the Presbytery assigned by the Committee of 
the Presbytery, and the work of advertising is paid from a general evangelistic 
fund. The plan of the Presbytery is more comprehensive and simpler than that 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church. It is simpler, for its work is carried on 
entirely by its own pastors and in its own churches. It is also more compre- 
hensive, for, while the districts remain the same, the churches serving as centres 
are changed from month to month, so that in the course of the winter and 
spring all the churches of the Presbytery become centres of evangelization. 

The fruits of these two movements are already very great. But the promise 

1 G 4 


in the coming months is still greater. It is greatly to be desired that these 
evangelistic movements should give birth to permanent efforts. 

There are many questions which need more thorough discussion, such as the 
employment of lay evangelists, the ordination of ministers to this special work, 
the superintendency of the work by Presbytery, the methods to be employed, 
and other like questions. But there are several things which ought to be 
clear to every intelligent adherent of the Westminster symbols. 

(1) Evangelization is to be conducted by the Church as a divine institution, 
and cannot be safely resigned to voluntary societies. 

(2) Evangelization is the work of the ordained ministers of Jesus Christ, and 
cannot be relinquished to unordained men. There are abundant fields of work 
for laymen, but it is a shame to the ordained ministry that laymen should do 
any part of the work of Christ that they have neglected. 

(3) The Church is called to evangelize the world. The work of foreign 
missions and the work of home missions are no more important than the work 
of evangelizing the unconverted in our towns and cities. These are three co- 
ordinate parts of the work of the Church, and it is perilous to neglect any one 
of them. 

(4) The work of Christian nurture through the administration of the means 
01 grace to Christians is the chief work of the Christian ministry, but no min- 
ister is faithful to his calling who is not also an evangelist. 

These are general principles which ought to be recognized. But the course of 
religious history has shown more than once that whenever the Church neglects 
to do the work of evangelization in a regular way, irregular and disorderly in- 
struments are employed by the Holy Spirit for the purpose, to humble the 
Church and expose its inconsistency. The Methodist movement was such an 
irregular movement. The New Lights in America shared in these irregulari- 
ties. The Salvation Army and the lay evangelists are such irregularities in our 
time. God has blessed them with marvellous success, notwithstanding their 
irregularities, because they have been doing the work which the Church neg- 
lected. The Church is called by an imperative voice to adapt herself to the 
circumstances of the age, and organize herself to do this great work of evangel- 
ization which has been committed to her. If the Church should decline the 
task we may expect that God will raise up other irregular agents in still greater 
numbers who will do his work and put the Church to shame. C. A. Briggs. 


The American section of the Executive Commission appointed by the Belfast 
Council held a meeting in this city on the 27th of October last. Twelve mem- 
bers were present. The Treasurer, George Junkin, Esq., reported that pay- 
ment in full or in part of the sums apportioned to the eleven different bodies 
represented in the Alliance had been made by all except two, and that, after 
paying expenses incurred by order of the Commission, there was a balance in 
his hands to its credit. 



Information was communicated from the European section that, in conse- 
quence of the difficulty of coming to a satisfactory conclusion respecting the 
appointment of a paid Secretary to devote his whole time to the interests of the 
Alliance, the two sections being separated by so wide a distance, they consid- 
ered it expedient to defer the appointment until the meeting of the Council in 
London, and meanwhile recommended that the former clerks, Drs. Blaikie and 
Matthews, conjointly, should conduct the general business of the Alliance, in- 
cluding the preparations for the London meeting. On motion, it was unani- 
mously resolved to concur with the judgment thus expressed. 

The European section having appointed a sub-committee to consider the 
propriety of establishing a low-priced quarterly paper, to serve as the literary 
organ of the Commission and as its means of communication with the churches, 
a similar sub-committee (Drs. Chambers, Briggs, and Kempshall) was author- 
ized to confer with our brethren, and, if they judged it desirable, pay $125 
toward the expense of such publication. 

Since several members of the Commission reside in remote sections of the 
country, the Treasurer was instructed to pay the transportation expenses of such 
members as require to travel three hundred miles or more in order to attend 
the annual meeting of the Commission, or that of the Committee on Co-opera- 
tion in the work of foreign missions. 

A committee was appointed to make arrangements for a public meeting in 
New York during the winter, for the purpose of calling attention to the need 
and the advantage of closer fellowship among the different Reformed Churches 
in their efforts to evangelize the heathen world. It is understood that this 
committee has fixed upon the evening of the 12th of January as the time, and 
the Brick Church as the place of this meeting. It is expected that a represent- 
ative of every body belonging to the Alliance will take part in the exercises. A 
similar meeting will subsequently be held to set forth the claims of feeble and 
suffering Churches on the Continent upon the sympathy and liberality of their 
more favored brethren. 

The Section also considered the precise time when the Alliance should hold 
its fourth General Council. The London brethren were of the opinion that it 
would be better, for various reasons, if the meeting could be held late in the 
year 1888, or at least not earlier than the month of October. It was resolved, 
in view of the great inconvenience to American pastors and professors, if the 
meeting were delayed to October, to recommend to the London Committee to 
call it, if possible, at some date between June and the middle of September. 

It was resolved to hold the annual meeting of the American Section in New 
York on the third Wednesday of April, 1886, at which time all the members 
would be expected to be present, notice being given so far in advance. The 
Section then adjourned, to meet at the call of the chairman. The session was a 
very harmonious one, every decision being reached after full and free discussion 
by a unanimous vote. T. W. Chambers, 

New York , November , 1885 . 





The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses 


Princeton Theological Seminary. New York : Robert Carter & Brothers. 

A generous friend of sacred learning having provided the means for an extra 
course of lectures at Newton Theological Seminary, the Faculty of that institu- 
tion invited Dr. Green to be the lecturer for 1885, and this volume gives us the 
lectures delivered. Never was liberality better applied or more richly rewarded. 
It also records one of the most cheering signs of the times, when two representa- 
tives of Christians, divided on other points, came together to study the founda- 
tions of our common faith. 

The main line of argument of the extreme school of the so-called Higher 
Criticism begins with the history of worship in the Old Testament. It treats of 
the places of worship ; of the means of worship, sacrifices, etc. ; of the times of 
worship, feasts, and of the priesthood. On each of the points an amount of 
scholarly work has been expended that is simply colossal. 

Before this volume there has been no thorough investigation of the arguments 
presented by the extreme critics in favor of their present view, that the Hebrew 
feasts, as they are presented to us in the Bible, were the final and late fixture of 
customs which had passed through varying and contradictory changes in preced- 
ing ages. Their method of proof is by the lower and higher criticism — i. e . , 
criticism of words, of style, and of history. By their criticism of the use of 
words and of general style they assert the proof of authors far apart in time and 
place, and by their criticism of the history they aver they have the proof that 
these feasts were never known before the exile as they are represented in the 
Bible. The same method of proof is attempted on all the points of the Old Tes- 
tament which the extreme school takes in hand. 

Dr. Green chooses as the subject of his investgation only the Hebrew Feasts, 
and holds himself strictly to this point. 

The general scheme of these lectures is (1) to set forth with fulness and accu- 
racy the views held by those who have denied the historical verity of the Bible 
account. We have not found a single point of importance which has not been 
fairly given. More than thirty of the foremost critics of this century, closing 
with the English translation of Wellhausen issued in April last, are minutely 
and fully quoted. (2) With the use of the same means the extreme critics 



employ to show the error of their view and to demonstrate the truth of the Bible 
account of these feasts ; that it is consistent with itself as to its words, its style, 
its history ; and that the only possible origin of the Hebrew feasts in Old Testa- 
ment history is just where it is placed by the Bible— in the age of Moses. 

These lectures force a comparison with the German treatises on the same sub- 
ject. A severe simplicity characterizes the line of argument, the style of writing, 
and the face of the page. There is no parade of learning. Bald assertion is 
never made to stand in place of -the fair result of careful investigation. Excellent 
specimens of keen critical analysis, the clear result of abundant work, will be 
found on pp. 174. ff . , 180-202, 262, etc., and the gleam of the sharpest edge of the 
argument from silence flashes out on pp. 225, 231, 275, 306, etc. In all the ele- 
ments of high scholarship, in abundant accurate information, in the facile use of 
every means of correct investigation, in giving the results of long and careful 
work without parade, this treatise will bear the most favorable comparison with 
any work on the same subject issued from the German presses ; while by the 
simplicity of its argument, by its accuracy in minutiae, its firm grasp of the whole 
subject, and the sturdy strength of its inferences, this volume reminds one 
strongly of those few works which remain as fertile oases in the sand-blown 
desert of theological conflict of the seventeenth century. Like those great treat- 
ises which have deserved to live, these lectures illustrate a sincere belief in the 
Bible and its teaching by a scrupulously honest treatment of opponents, and by 
a clean avoidance of any unfair argument in reply to them or in defence of the 

This volume is not only an honor to the scholarship of the nineteenth century ; 
it is also a staff of strength for every intelligent, reverent student of the Bible. 
The great debt sincere lovers of the Bible of every family of American Christians 
owe to Princeton has been further increased by this timely volume. 

Howard Osgood. 

The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. An Examination of Recent Theo- 
ries. By Edwin Cone Bissell, D.D. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons. 

The origin and structure of the Pentateuch continues to enlist the interest of all 
students of the Old Testament. The radical theory urged so strongly by Kuenen, 
Wellhausen, Robertson Smith, and Toy has demanded a fresh study of the 
entire Old Testament by all who wish to know what are the real facts of the case. 
Professor Bissell, of the Hartford Theological Seminary, has published several 
papers on this subject, in the Bibliotheca Sacra and in the Journal of the Society 
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. These he has collected and has added sev- 
eral more, making ten in all, which are now given to the public in one compact 
volume. These papers give a searching criticism of the theory of Wellhausen, 
and a harmonistic study of the several codes of the Pentateuch. They do not con- 
sider those other problems of Pentateuchal criticism which have to do with the 
language, style, historical narratives, and theology of the different documents. 
They do not examine the other theories of the origin and structure of the Penta- 
teuch which are maintained by Schrader, Delitzsch, Dillmann, and others. And 
they leave the most important work of all unaccomplished, for they not only do 
not give an account of the origin and composition of the Pentateuch, but they do 
not even confront these problems. 

Professor Bissell has done good service in adding another to the considerable 
number of polemics against the Wellhausen theory now before the public. In 
our judgment his papers are the most effective which have thus far been written 
on the conservative side. They give a careful study of the codes for the purpose 
of harmonizing them. They also trace the codes in the later literature of the 
Old Testament. The result of the investigation is to throw them all back into 



the Mosaic age. Professor Bissell is free to admit editorial additions to the codes 
at later dates than their origination, hut holds that they are essentially Mosaic. 
But notwithstanding the care with which the “ laws peculiar to Deuteronomy,” 
“ the laws repealed and modified in Deuteronomy,” and “ the laws peculiar to 
the priests’ code” are considered, yet one gets the impression that too often the 
differences are slurred over, and that some points are a good deal strained in the 
effort to produce complete harmony. In the end the differences have to be 
explained on some theory that will account for the resemblances. And the great 
problem stares us in the face how it came about that the same lawgiver should 
give to the same people four different codes of legislation in the same generation, 
all embracing the same essential laws, and yet each having marked peculiarities 
and increasing their differences in an ascending ratio. 

There is good service in battling against a radical and revolutionary theory 
which carries in its train a multitude of evils, but the theory^ of Wellhausen has 
enjoyed its popularity from its honest effort to explain certain difficulties which 
the traditional theory ignored. The problem for biblical scholars is to give a 
rational and satisfactory explanation of the differences and resemblances of the 
codes, and of the narratives of the Pentateuch in which the codes are embedded. 
This latter problem Professor Bissell leaves exactly where he found it. The 
human mind is so constituted that it will construct theories where the facts are 
undiscovered. What is needed in evangelical circles is more of the spirit of 
biblical research, which will prevent the rise of radical and revolutionary theo- 
ries by the presentation of rational and sober theories taking account of all facts. 

Besides the three papers on the laws of Deuteronomy and the priests’ code, 
there is a valuable paper “ On the Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy.” 
This we regard as the choicest piece in the book. These four papers give the 
volume its importance and great value. The other papers are not so good. 
The “ Historical Sketch of the Criticism” is meagre and inadequate ; the discus- 
sion of “ The Proposed Analysis” is anything but critical. The three papers on 
the Law in the Prophets, the Historical Books, and the Psalms, take for granted 
so much that is in dispute that the value of the discussion is vitiated to all who 
are not willing to follow the author in any event. There is a long list of writings 
on the Pentateuch arranged in alphabetical order, prepared by the librarian of 
Hartford Theological Seminary, E. C. Richardson, which will be of service to 
those who would prosecute the study. The volume is supplied with good in- 
dexes and is convenient in size. C. A. Briggs. 

The Old and New Testaments in their Mutual Relations. By Frederic 

Gardiner, D.D., Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School. Pp. x., 352. 

New York : James Pott & Co., 1885. 

The above title is given by the author to a series of fifteen lectures, originally 
delivered, as he tells us in the Preface, to his divinity students, and now issued in 
a somewhat less technical form. The subject is one of peculiar interest by 
reason of the modification of view with regard to it on the part of a considerable 
number of Biblical scholars. The relations of the two covenants need to be re- 
examined and re-stated by those who hold to an organic connection between 
them, that Christian knowledge may not only hold its ground, but advance to 
new and more commanding positions. There is, however, not much that is 
essentially novel in the views put forth by Professor Gardiner, nor does he 
assume that there is. His endeavor seems to be to present the established views 
of the Church in such a way as to show their reasonableness and the failure of 
recent attacks upon them, and so to recommend them to thinking people. He 
writes in no polemic spirit. His tone is as courteous as it is conservative. He 
exhibits, in many details, that good sense and calm balance of mind which have 



done so much to establish his reputation as an accomplished scholar. One need 
only refer to the discriminating characterization of the judges (p. 84), or the 
remarks (p. 273) with regard to the employment of Old Testament language by 
New Testament writers to illustrate and describe events not contemplated in its 
original use. The wjiole volume is written with quiet, but earnest, undismayed 
conviction, and commends itself by a disarming moderateness of statement. 

It is with diffidence that a few criticisms are suggested : 

1. The relations between the two Testaments are conditioned in an important 
way by the character and circumstances of the people and their leaders, by their 
nationality, by the crisis at which they lived, by Oriental race-influences. It 
would have strengthened his position if Dr. Gardiner had made more use of 
these personal and national factors — not in accounting for the Old Testament or 
the New, but in explaining how the .various institutions and writings came to be 
what they are. This applies particularly, though not exclusively, to the chapter 
on Prophecy. The views are presented in what seems too external a way ; the 
personal agency of the prophet is not made so prominent as the facts would war- 
rant. The abundant psychological discussions of recent years with regard to 
prophecy (even restricting the word, with the author, to predictive prophecy) 
might have been more fully drawn upon, with the result of bringing the matter 
closer home to the reader, securing much greater vividness and more intelligent 
conceptions of truth. On the other hand, the world of ideas familiar to the Jew 
of the New Testament times might have been introduced to the reader, or he to 
it, with like results. Further, the whole subject of the languages used in the 
two collections is one upon which no one can doubt that Dr. Gardiner has much 
which he might have said, if only in outline, to the enrichment of the book. 

2. The wider circle which Dr. Gardiner desires to reach will be likely to unite 
with students themselves in the wish for greater clearness at some points. No 
doubt the mere condensation of a great subject often leads to obscurity.. But 
what is here meant is not obscurity resulting from compression, and is only in 
part inherent in the nature of the theme — e.g., the lecture on “ The Kingdom of 
God ” seems to give no sufficiently distinct account of the origin and develop- 
ment of the idea of such a kingdom, even of the bearing of the institution of a 
human king in Israel upon that conception. Something of the same sort may 
be found in the three lectures on “ Typology” — certainly a very difficult subject, 
and so difficult, requiring such nice discriminations and such unprejudiced in- 
quiry, that its study can hardly be fruitfully pursued along the old lines. The 
tendency of modern thinking when applied to the Old Testament is, so far as it 
is the thinking of scholars, to minimize its typology ; among self-taught Bible- 
readers the typology is pushed to an extreme ; to guard against excess in both 
directions a re-examination of the whole subject in detail is greatly needed, and 
this inquiry must begin by a full recognition of the primary importance of the 
original historical sense. 

3. The difficulty of holding ‘‘that everything which happened ‘ in order that 
the Scriptures might be fulfilled ’ took place for that express reason”(p. 265), 
leads the author to understand this formula in this sense : “ and so, in the Divine 
plan, that came to pass which had been foretold,” falling back upon ” the gen- 
eral softening in the sense of the illative hm.” But Iva, which doubtless so far 
lays aside its final force as to introduce object clauses in the New Testament, 
surely never denotes a simple result. 

4. In regard to the New Testament evidence for the authorship of Old Testa- 
ment books, a considerable difference of opinion would be indicated by a differ- 
ent emphasis upon certain points — e.g., the strength of the presumption afforded 
by the New Testament in certain cases for the traditional views ; besides this 
we should have to join issue at various steps of the argument ; but the temper of 



the discussion here, as throughout, is so considerate as to make it impossible to 
disagree with violence. 

It will be well lor those who heard these lectures, or study this book, if they 
gain from it not only a new zeal for the inquiry which the Old Testament now, 
more than ever, demands, but also something of the gracious and Christian habit 
of mind which it displays. Francis Brown. 

The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and its Bearings on Script- 
ure. By H. Clay Trumbull, D.D. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 
1885. 8vo, pp. 350. 

Dr. Trumbull, who is already widely and favorably known by his explorations 
to discover the site of Kadesh-Barnea, has in this handsome and attractive vol- 
ume given the results of his exploration in a different field, which, as he has 
shown, is one of remarkable interest, and well repays investigation. Starting 
with the custom, still observed in Syria, of contracting a blood covenant between 
two persons by each imbibing blood from the other’s arm, and thus establish- 
ing a tie which takes precedence of even the nearest relationship, he traces a like 
idea and practice among Arabs, the barbarous tribes of Africa, Madagascar, 
Borneo, and other islands of the Malay archipelago, the aborigines of Yucatan, 
the Scandinavians, the ancient Scythians and Armenians, and perhaps the Cati- 
line conspirators. Hints and indications are also brought together from a much 
wider area, suggestive possibly of a yet more extensive prevalence of like concep- 
tions and usages. The ingenuity with which this multitude of seemingly hetero- 
geneous details are brought into mutual relation, and the fresh and often unex- 
pected light thrown upon them by the connection in which they are here placed 
or the aspect under which they are viewed, keeps the reader constantly on the 
alert, and makes the volume as suggestive and instructive as it is entertaining. 
The enthusiasm and earnestness of the author manifest on every page cannot fail 
to secure attention, even from those who hesitate at some of his conclusions. 
Such as wish to study the subject independently for themselves will here find a 
welcome mass of materials industriously gathered, with copious references to 
authorities. And it does not detract from the value of the volume thus regarded 
if, in the zeal with which the search has been prosecuted, occasional items have 
been introduced which prove not to be strictly pertinent. 

It belongs to professed Egyptologists to pronounce upon the question whether 
the obscure passages cited from the Book of the Dead find their best illustration 
from this rite, as is plausibly suggested (p. 79). The proposed etymological con- 
nection between the Latin assiratum, used of a drink of mingled wine and 
blood, and the Semitic root asar , to bind (p. 64), would be curious and interest- 
ing, if it could be established. But the gift of a ring or a bracelet as a pledge 
of union (p. 65) has no necessary connection with the blood covenant ; and even 
an oath upon a ring dipped in sacrificial blood (p. 68), by which an appeal is 
made to the gods, is not suggestive of the fundamental thought in the blood cov- 
enant of a union cemented by joint participation in a common life, and repre- 
sented by sharing in the same blood. And the special friendships of the North 
American Indians or of the South Sea Islanders (p. 56), however singular in their 
character, do not appear to be based upon any rite of blending blood. 

In an induction from usages so diversified, and prevailing among tribes and 
races so widely sundered in place and time, and so distinct in origin, there is an 
obvious danger of confounding things externally similar, which yet may be based 
on totally divergent conceptions. And even the most conscientious investigator, 
bent on tracing one idea to its utmost limits, may impose his own thought on 
forms to which it is foreign. In our opinion Dr. Trumbull makes an occasional 
slip of this nature. The general conception that the blood is the file evidently 



underlies all the facts that he adduces in which blood is concerned. This arises 
so naturally out of the physical conditions ol life that it may well be believed 
to be universal. But the specilic application of this conception to a union of life 
through the mingling of blood does not seem to be always present. The Poly- 
nesian imprecation (p. 5.3) : “ If I be false and be not a true friend, may my 
blood issue from my mouth, ears, nose, as it does from this bamboo,” indicates 
that the blood is suggestive, not of a mutual covenant, but of an infliction in case 
of treachery. And from aught that appears this was the significance of the blood 
mixed with wine that Catiline and his accomplices drank followed by an impre- 
catory oath (p. 60). The self-inflicted wounds of the Turkish lover (p. 85), of the 
South Sea Islanders (pp. 86, 87), and of Nebsecht in Ebers’ ‘‘ Uarda” (p. 84), 
point to a devotion of the life and a readiness to sued their blood for the beloved 
object, but there is no interchange of blood suggestive of a mutual covenant. 

The most interesting chapter to a majority of readers will doubtless be that in 
which application is made of the principles of the volume to passages and insti- 
tutions of the Bible. The illustration thus afforded of the meaning of circum- 
cision (p. 215) is very happy ; so are the remarks on the sacrifice of Isaac (p. 224), 
and on our Lord’s words : “ He that drinketh my blood hath eternal lile” (p. 276). 
Doubtless, also, Baal’s prophets gashing themselves (p. 90), and wounds received 
in the house of friends (the idols) (p. 342), are properly explained as “ proofs 
of self-devotedness, the blood is poured out, the life is proffered by the devotee 
toward his God.” And a like explanation might have been made of the pro- 
hibited “ cuttings in your flesh for the dead ” (Lev. xix. 28). But we cannot see 
that Abraham and Abimelech (p. 246), or Jacob and Laban (p. 269), or David 
and Jonathan (p. 270), made incisions in their own flesh when they “ cut a cov- 
enant or that in the blood of the passover lamb on the door-posts and lintels 
“ the Lord was to give of His blood by substitution” (p. 231). The idea that 
the “ goel’s mission” was not ‘‘to mete out punishment” (p. 263) does not 
seem to agree with Genesis ix. 16, and the view taken of sacrifice, though pro- 
fessedly partial (pp. 209, 210), is not to our mind satisfactory. The covenant 
union in sacrifice was represented by eating the flesh of the victim, not by 
sprinkling the blood. We presume that “ the doctrine of imputation with real 
life in it, in lieu of a hard commercial transaction, as some have viewed it,” is 
directed against antinomians ; if the last clause is meant to apply to imputation, 
as commonly held by the adherents of the Westminster confession, we would 
have to protest against it as unfair. 

We have been thus particular in stating our points of dissent on account of the 
real merit which the volume possesses, and the hearty commendation which with 
the above exceptions we are prepared to bestow upon it. - W. H. Green. 

The following works in Exegetical Theology may be briefly noticed : 

A Layman s Study of the English Bible Considered in its Literary and Secu- 
lar Aspect. By Francis Bowen, LL.D., Alford Professor of Philosophy in Har- 
vard College. Pp. 145. (New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, $1.) Whatever 
makes the Bible seem worth careful study does good. Professor Bowen avows 
this as his purpose. Without attempting completeness or thoroughness, he dis- 
cusses a variety of topics which concern the Scriptures, handles the Book with 
some freedom, makes some rash statements, leaves very much out of account — 
even ignores, perhaps too exclusively, the chief purpose of the Bible — condemns the 
Revised Version for its poor English, rejects the evolution of man on the ground 
that “ the two exclusively human endowments of language and the use of fire 
prove conclusively that man was originally taught by God” (p. 63), despises 
‘‘critical speculations” (p. 119), and especially ‘‘German critics, whose erudi- 
tion appears to have been heaped up by the shovel rather than the pen” (p. 120) ; 


1 79 , 

1 i A 

writes, in short, as a non-specialist, and with a non-specialist's limitations, but 
vigorously, and often with freshness of thought. We quote, as of interest for 
different reasons, two other sentences : “ It must be obvious to any one, I think, 
that the first three chapters of Genesis contain an ancient Hebrew poem, or 
rather the fragments of several such poems somewhat imperfectly dovetailed to- 
gether, in praise of the Creator, and embodying in an imaginative form the 
national faith respecting the act of creation and the primitive state of man on 
earth” (p. 75). ” My own strong conviction is that the only hope for the civili- 

zation and the happiness of the generations that are to come in this English- 
speaking world depends on the continued reverent study of the English Bible” 
(p. 143). Half-Hours with the Lessons of 1886, pp. 464 (Philadelphia: Pres- 

byterian Board of Publication), is similar to the volumes of previous years with 
like title. ” Twenty-four Presbyterian clergymen” contribute two short exposi- 
tory sermons each. These are, of course, various in merit, but generally practi- 
cal and forcible, a few of them exceptionally fresh and suggestive. -The West- 

minster Question-Book. International Series, 1886, Vol. XII., pp. 192. (Phila- 
delphia : Presbyterian Board of Publication.) This little book, whose pattern is 
now so familiar, needs revision as to its archaeology. Nebuchadnezzar was not 
an ‘ ‘ Assyrian king” (p. 17), Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were not 
names given ” in honor of the Babylonian sun-god, earth-god and fire-god ” 
(p. 22), nor does Belteshazzar mean “whom Bel favors” (p. 29). Babylon did 
not hold out ” lor a whole year” against Cyrus (lb.), (although the Question- 
Book is more accurate as to the relation between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar 
than the corresponding sermon in the “ Half Hours,” where the former is made 
” the son and successor” of the latter). “ Darius the Mede” was not Astyages, 
nor was he “ the formal king” of Babylon for two years after Cyrus captured it. 
We regret to see the Rechabites made to do duty again as examples to be imi- 
tated by total abstinence. In the New Testament Lessons we observe less to 
criticise. It seems impossible, however, to date the Apocalypse in a.d. 95 or 
96. It is practically certain that it antedated by many years John’s Gospel and 

Epistles. An Outline of General Introduction to the Old Testament. By 

Henry P. Smith. Pp. 44. (Cincinnati : 1885.) Professor Smith has put into 
manageable shape the most important general facts about the Old Testament, its 
names and divisions, its languages and text, its versions, its formation, and the 
leading characteristics of its several parts. These are things which the theologi- 
cal student ought to master, and to master very early. The chapter on the 
Canon is, perhaps, the best in the pamphlet ; but the whole is marked by scholar- 
ship, caution of statement, and simple regard for truth. Skizzcn und Vorar- 

beiten. Von Julius Wellhausen. II. Die Composition des Hexateuchs. Pp. 208. 
(Berlin : G. Reimer, 1885.) [New York : B. Westermann & Co.] This is 
simply a reprint of the articles in the Jahrbiichcr fur Deutsche Theologic 
(1 876— ’77), in which Wellhausen first developed with a detailed analysis his theory 
of the construction of the Pentateuch. They are put now in a form convenient 
for reference, and without alteration. Knowledge of them is essential to a lull 
and independent understanding of the theory. No doubt the theory is unten- 
able, but in its proposal facts have been emphasized which no school of biblical 
study can afford to ignore or belittle, and if reverent criticism is to reap the 
benefit of Wellhausen’s sharp attack on traditional views it must learn what 

gives that attack its persistent force. Das Buck Hiob nach Luther und der 

Probebibel aus dem Grund text bearbeitet und mit Bemerkungen versehen, von 
Viktor Bottcher, Pastor in Pretzschendorf. Pp. 72. (Leipzig : Johannes Leh- 
mann, 1885.) [New York : B. Westermann & Co.] A new translation of Job, 
with notes. The author is satisfied neither with Luther nor with Luther’s revi- 
sers. His style of criticism is not moderate, but rather self-confident and chol- 
eric. Some of his suggestions and some of his renderings are good ; but wild 



etymologies and baseless theories are not lacking. There is no attempt to mark 
strophical divisions, or in any way to indicate the poetical structure ot the book. 

Das Zukunftsbild des Jesaia. Akademische Antrittsvorlesung in erweiter- 

ter Form herausgegebun, von Hermann Guthe, A. O. Professor der Theologie. 
Pp. 49. (Leipzig : Breitkopf und Hartel, 1885.) Guthe distinguishes two gen 
eral types of prediction in Isaiah’s writings, the former involving a rejection of 
the reigning members of David’s house, the overthrow of their sovereignty, and 
the devastation of the land of Judah, and looking forward to a future king of 
David’s line who should restore what was ruined, and adorn it with still greater 
glory than the old ; the .second dropping the thought of a destruction of the 
monarchy and the loss of the capital, replacing it by that of a development of 
future glory ofit of the present condition of the people, with chastisements but no 
catastrophe between. The author makes the repeated deliverances of Jerusalem 
from the Assyrians the occasion of the prophet’s change of tone. He holds, how- 
ever, that the two are not inconsistent, and that the prophet sanctioned their 
combination in the book of his prophecies, looking to the more distant future for 
the fulfilment of the former. The line of thought is not always vigorously and 

clearly followed. Die Stellung Ezechicls in der alttestamentlichen Prophetic. 

Von Dr. phil. Theodor Arndt, Prediger an St. Petri zu Berlin. Pp. 32. (Beilin : 
A. Haack, 1886.) This is more distinct and definite in handling its topic than 
the pamphlet just mentioned. The author’s attitude toward the Prophet Ezekiel 
is, however, not one of sympathy. Starting with the view that Ezekiel's legisla- 
tion was the basis of the Priest-code of the middle books of the Pentateuch, and 
that his delineations ot temple and ritual are to be taken in a literal sense, he 
finds his conception of God to be rather formal than living and spiritual, and his 
position with reference to the sinning people one of merciless condemnation. 
The natural outcome is that Ezekiel was really no prophet in the old, high sense. 
“ Jeremiah was the last prophet, Ezekiel the first of the Scribes, ‘the spiritual 
father of Judaism.’’’ One who denies the assumption from which the author 
works will reach somewhat different conclusions. Francis Brown. 


The Oldest Church Manual, called The Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles ; is.i8a.xv tov SuHeKa anoaroXuv ; The Didache and kindred Documents 
in the Original, with Translations and Discussions of Post- Apostolic Teach- 
ing, Baptism, Worship, and Discipline ; and with Illustrations and Fac- 
similes of the Jerusalem MS. By Philip Schaff. New York : Funk & 
Wagnalls. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 1885. 8vo, pp. vii. , 301. 

Unlike most of its editors, Dr. Schaff’s primary object in preparing an edition 
of “ The Teaching of the Apostles’’ is historical rather than critical. This has 
affected not only the matter, but also the form of his book. Very large space, com- 
paratively, is given to the discussion of the historical aspects of the questions that 
are raised. The whole discussion is conceived from the historical point of view, 
and the reference to historical matters is constant, even in the commentary. 
And the text itself, with its translation and notes, and the parallel texts are given 
only at the end, by way, as it were, of an appendix of supporting documents. If 
we owe the fulness of the discussion which we now have, however, and the edi- 
tion of the document itself which accompanies it, to the accident that Bryennios’s 
book was not published until after the issue of the second edition of the second 
volume of Dr. Schaft’s “ Church History,’’ we are thankful to a kind Providence 
for sending so propitious an accident. 



For the English-speaking reader could not well spare Dr. Schaff's volume. Let 
us enumerate some of its distinguishing peculiarities. It alone of editions con- 
tains an accurate account of Bishop Bryennios himself, illustrated by his portrait, 
or a description of the monastery, in the library of which the MS. is preserved, 
illustrated by a view. It alone of editions contains a fac-simile of the MS. It 
alone of English editions contains the parallel texts of Barnabas, Hermas, the 
Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions in Greek and English, 
and thus puts the means of comparing them in the hands of the reader. It con- 
tains the most numerous and rich series of references to discussions of the 
Didache of any edition ; re-enforced by a very full select digest of the literature 
of the treatise. It contains the fullest and soundest study of the relations of the 
Didache to the Scriptures that has anywhere appeared. It contains a long and 
interesting discussion of the history of Baptism. It contains a very valuable and 
detailed investigation into the vocabulary of the treatise. And lastly, its com- 
mentary of the Didache ranks among the most helpful that have appeared in 
English. The scholar who has kept up with the foreign literature on the subject 
will still find the volume useful. To the scholar who confines himself to works 
in English it is indispensable. 

At the same time, it must be remembered that this work is only in a secondary 
sense an edition of the Didache. The predominating historical interest has not 
operated so strongly as to banish the critical matter that one looks for in proper 
Prolegomena to a new text ; but it has operated strongly enough to confine it in 
narrow space and give it here and there a dryish flavor. One runs through the 
curiously little chapters bearing such titles as “ A Precious Volume,” “ A Lite- 
rary Sensation,” “ Various Estimates,” only to find briefer ones still on ” The 
Title,” ” Aim and Contents,” ” The Doctrinal [jAt] and Catechetical Part” 
(these three chapters average one page each, open type), and, after a little, ” The 
Ritualistic or Liturgical Part and then, again, “ Ecclesiastical Organization 
and, at a later point, “ Authenticity of the Didache,” ” Time of Composition,” 
“ Place of Composition,” ” Authorship,” etc. It is understood, of course, that 
among these are dispersed other longer and more interestedly written chapters 
discussing the matter of the treatise, especially its teaching as to baptism ; some- 
times somewhat strangely placed, as, eg., when ” The Theology of the Didache” 
is made to stand immediately after the discussion of its first section (i.-vi.). Later 
still come a short chapter, each, on the Canons and Constitutions. The good 
judgment which Dr. Schaff expresses in these little scraps of chapters, and the 
wealth of reference to other writers where more lengthy discussion may be 
found, alone save some of them from being disappointing. No doubt an author 
ought not to be complained of because he confines himself closely to his main 
purpose. Dr. Schaff did not wish to write a library, and the very comprehen- 
siveness of his book entailed a compression in parts which would leave some- 
thing to be desired. 

The conclusions which Dr. Schaff reaches on the critical questions are judi- 
cious and usually well-grounded. He dates the treatise from the end of the first 
century, and assigns it to a Jewish-Christian author writing in Syria or Palestine. 
He finds that Barnabas is dependent on it, and wonders that so many scholars 
can have come to another opinion. The text of his edition is openly printed and 
iollows the MS. closely, relegating even the certain emendations of other editors 
to the margin. The English translation is careful and good. The Commentary 
is full and instructive, and, besides giving critical remarks and historical illustra- 
tions, traces the train of thought. The texts of ” the kindred documents,” prom- 
ised in the title, are given in their latest critical shapes, and are accompanied 
with English translations. Great pains have been taken to make comparison 
between them and the text of the Didache easy, by spacing in the Greek and 



italicizing in the English the common words, and marking the chapters and 
verses of the Didache on their margins. Just here, however, I must exercise the 
right of a critic to find fault. The usefulness of this apparatus is not a little 
marred by two faults : (i) A fault of translation. For such a purpose identical 
phrases should find identical translation in the several texts. So far is this from 
being done that the reader who should depend on the English for guidance would 
be misled on every page. (2) A fault of proof-reading. This has been done so ill 
that the result is portentous. Let us take a single page as an example : page 
231, where Barnabas, xix. 9-xx. 1, appears. At the bottom of page 230 the 
margin gives us “ [iv. 4],” instead of [iv. 1] ; “ every one" wrongly italicized ; 
Kvpiov wrongly spaced, and "Lord" wrongly italicized; “ speaketh” given 
where “ speaks” appears in the Didache ; and ” thou shalt remember” wrongly 
left in Roman letters. On page 231 we find l/pepav Kpioeog wrongly spaced ; 
” night and day” wrongly unitalicized ; “ by” used where “ with” occurs in the 
Didache ; “ when” where ” in” is used in the Dadache ; “ but" wrongly ital- 
icized ; “ dispenser of the recompense” used to translate the very same words 
which are rendered in the Didache “ recompense of the reward “ to it” and 
” from it” used where the Didache has “ [thereto] ” and “ [therefrom] “ the 
(devil)” for “(the devil);” “righteously” for “justly” in the Didache; the 
marginal reference “ [iv. 3] ” misplaced ; “ bringing" wrongly italicized ; “ who 
are” inserted where nothing is supplied in the Didache ; “ make confession” 
replacing “ confess” in the Didache ; “ death” and “ haughtiness” improperly 
unitalicized ; and Smapeug wrongly spaced. I pity the man who accepts Dr. 
Schaff’s pages of comparisons without correcting them ! That the most of 
these lapses are printers’ errors seems probable from the number of certain 
press-errors elsewhere in the book, which do not so much as these injure its 
value, but only mar its beauty. 

It is unnecessary to collect here the petty points which I have marked as slight 
errors. Such are inevitable in any work which covers so much ground and con- 
tains such numerous details. Just a sample or two. It illustrates the nodding 
of Jupiter to see so good a scholar misled into writing such a sentence as this : 
“ Clement of Alexandria (Strom, v. 5) says : ‘ The Gospel [Matt. vii. 13, 14] pro- 
poses two ways, as do likewise the Apostles [probably the Didache], and all 
the Prophets (Jer. xxi. 8)’ ” (p. 163, notes; cf. also p. 115, note*). The error 
originated in Byrennios (p. 4), and has been copied from him by many subse- 
quent writers (e.g. , Dr. Brown, Canon Spence, etc.). Harnack (p. 16) saves 
himself ; he says simply that it is probable that Clement had the Didache in his 
eye when he wrote the passage — which is probably true. Canon Spence (p. 9, 
note*) amusingly explains “ the Prophets" as “ the men alluded to so frequently 
under this name in our treatise.” But Dr. Schaff whittles the point of the error 
to its very sharpest by his bracketed insertion. Of course, “ the Gospel, the 
Apostles, and the Prophets” is but Clement’s way of saying “ The New Testa- 
ment and the Old ” — “ the whole Bible ;” and the phrase in its full form : “ The 
Law and the Prophets with the Gospel and the Apostles,” and in a great variety 
oE abbreviations was the earliest and for two hundred years the current designa- 
tion of the Bible. It is as common in Clement, Irenasus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, 
etc., as “ the Old and New Testaments” in Baxter or Bunyan. We might as 
well find a reference to the Didache in these words from a recent book : “ They 
repudiated anything that was not in keeping with the Scriptures and the Teach- 
ing of the Apostles" (“ Letters from Hell,” Letter XV.) ; or this from the 
August Expositor : “Isaac Taylor . . . founded his belief upon the historic 
truth of the events recorded in the Gospels, which he held to be irrefragable, 
and upon the Apostolic teaching, which he accepted as of absolute authority.” 
The latter is the juster parallel. 

1 TG 


It is strange, again, that Dr. Schaff seems to have expected Funk to mention 
Krawutzcky’s second paper, when it was not published until three months later 
than his own paper (p. 144). I do not understand (p. 145) Kravvutzcky to think the 
Latin “ Doctrina Apostolorum” like the Apostolical Constitution, a rectification of 
the Didache. What he says is : “ The author of the Latin Didache (just as the 
author of the Canons) laid the older Two Ways at the base of his work, and out 
of this subject-matter, with occasional use of Barnabas and of the Didache, set 
forth his own ' Doctrina Apostolorum.’ ” This is something essentially differ- 
ent. Injustice is done also (p. 17, note) to Harnack’s analysis of the treatise 
(which I, too, however, think an unsatisfactory one) by omissions from his state- 
ment of heads I. and III. The Talmudic passage (p. 21) seems to be no parallel 
to the notion of two ways as taught in our treatise, inasmuch as it seems to 
speak not of two ways of conduct in life, but of the diverging pathways of souls 
after death ( Bcrachoth , 28b.). In my judgment Zahn is wrongly combated in 
his interpretation of the Eucharistic prayers. The subject of the vote of the 
Westminster divines is wrongly stated on page 52, and there are other un- 
guarded statements in the same context. 

It is an unavoidable effect of pointing out a few petty errors in a book so full 
of detail as this, that the reader gets the unjust impression that the book is being 
itself condemned. As the slips are petty in this case, and it is impossible to 
offset them by adducing the great mass of statements in which the matters 
treated are justly and strongly put, I refrain from further criticism. I hope a 
second edition will be called for soon, and Dr. Schaff may find a little leisure, 
and his proof-readers much, to go over the plates and bring the petty matters 
where they are faulty into harmony with the general excellence of the work. 
Meanwhile, whether in first or second edition, the English reader has in the 
present work an indispensable handbook to the Didache and its literature. 

I may be permitted to add, in closing, that a renewed and very thorough study 
of the text of Chapters I.-VI. of the treatise has resulted in giving me increased 
confidence in the general views of its textual transmission, which Dr. Schaff 
allowed me to state on pages 220 sq. of his book, but in somewhat lowering my 
estimate of the superior correctness of the text transmitted by the group, consist- 
ing of the Latin Version, Barnabas and the Canons, which, although giving the 
earliest attested text, does not approve itself as generally' much more correct than 
the other. Benjamin B. Warfield. 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers 
down to a.d. 325. The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Don- 
aldson, LL.D., Editors. American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition. 
Revised and Chronologically Arranged, with brief Prefaces and Occasional 
Notes, by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. Volumes I.— III. The Apostolic Fa- 
thers, Justin Martyr, Irenmus. Buffalo : The Christian Literature Publishing 
Company. 1885. 

This enterprising American house has done good service to the common cause 
of Christianity in undertaking this valuable series of publications. 

While the arrangement is entirely satisfactory to the Edinburgh publishers, it 
is so economical as to place these writings within practicable reach of the entire 
American ministry. At the same time, it will commend itself to the attention 
and patronage of intelligent ministers and laymen in all the churches, not only 
by its economy, but especially by its improvement on the Edinburgh series, in 
several important particulars : 

(1) The American editor proposes to give historic arrangement to the confused 
mass of the original series ; (2) to supply, in continuity, such brief introductory- 
notices as might slightly popularize what was apparently meant for scholars 
only, in the introductions of the translators ; (3) to supply a few deficiencies by 



short notes and references ; (4) to add such references to Scripture, or to authors 
of general repute, as might lend additional aid to students without clogging or 
overlaying the comments of the translators ; (5) to note such corruptions or dis- 
tortions of Patristic testimony as have been circulated, in the spirit ol the forged 
Decretals, by those who carry on the old impostures by means essentially equiv- 
alent. (See Preface, p. v.) 

These useful additions will be made without omitting anything from the orig- 

The books will be printed in octavo volumes, with double columns, in clear, 
large type and ample page, of the same style as the Century Magazine — a style 
unsurpassed in plan and execution. 

By this happy arrangement the twenty-four volumes of the Edinburgh series 
will be reduced to eight volumes ; and the cost will be reduced from $72 to $24 
tor the entire series. 

This first volume of the eight is highly attractive in finish, both without and 

The accomplished editor, Bishop Coxe, “ assisted by several men of letters 
and eminent divines,” has performed his task admirably ; and it is safe to say 
that this first volume more than meets the public expectation, while it affords a 
satisfactory guarantee of the entire American series. 

Already, in this single volume, besides Prefaces and Introductory Notices, 
together with the fivefold additions just mentioned, we have chronologically 
arranged the following writings : I. St. Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians ; 
II. Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetus ; III. Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, 
Martyrdom ; IV. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, Epistle to the Ephesians, 
shorter and longer versions, Epistle to the Magnesians, Epistle to the Trallians, 
Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 
Epistle to Polycarp, Appendix, Syriac version, Spurious Epistles, Martyrdom ; 
V. Barnabas, Epistle; VI. Papias, Fragments; VII. Justin Martyr, The First 
Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jest, The Disclosures 
to the Greeks, Hortatory Address to the Greeks, On the Sole Government of God, 
on the Resurrection, Fragments, Other Fragments, Martyrdom ; VIII. Irenaeus, 
Against Heresies, Fragments. 

Here is a library unique and complete in itself, covering a period of one hun- 
dred years, the second century of the Christian era. 

This volume, together with the sacred Scriptures, gives the genuine, original 
history of the Christian Church for the first two centuries of its existence. It has 
been well said, ‘‘ No Christian scholar has ever before possessed, in faithful ver- 
sions of such compact form, a supplement so essential to the right understand- 
ing of the New Testament itself. It is a volume indispensable to all scholars, 
and to every library, private or public, in this country.” 

The whole series of eight volumes will iorm “ The Ante-Nicene Christian 
Library.” The purpose is to give to English readers a faithful translation of the 
writings of the Christian Fathers to 325 A.D. — the year of the Nicene Council — 
” without theological bias or individual coloring,” and thus to make the whole 
series one of common interest to all Christians. 

This was the period of the undivided Christian Church — a period of faithful 
piety and of fearful persecution ; of great Christian activity and Christian 
achievement, when Christian zeal and suffering and endurance were graciously 
crowned with such success as to show forth evidently in and by the Church 
“ Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,” when, in striking fulfilment 
of inspired Scripture, by the foolish things of the world God did confound the 
wise, and by the weak things of the world he confounded the things which are 
mighty. In this period saints filled with the Spirit subdued soldiers, and martyrs 



became mightier than monarchs, and the Church of Christ, unarmed, conquered 
the Empire of the Cmsars. 

We have here primary evidence of the genuineness of the New Testament, 
as well as of the superiority and power of the Divine Word —genuineness, in the 
multiplied quotations from the Scriptures ; superiority, as we compare these 
pious writings of the Apostolic Fathers with the inspired word of the Apostles 

The present time is favorable, if not urgent, for such a publication as is here 

Public attention is vigorously challenged in the historical direction. Criticism 
at home and abroad, bv friends and foes to the Bible, is raising again the ques- 
tions of Genuineness, Authenticity, and Canonicity. These writings of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers take us back to the times of the Apostles. They make large 
quotations from the Scriptures, especially from the New Testament. Hence they 
bear directly upon the questions now agitated. These writers, such as Clement 
and Polycarp, bring us into living companionship with St. Paul and St. John. 
Vols. II. and 111. of this admirable series have already appeared. The style and 
execution improve as the publication advances. This is especially noticeable in 
the third volume, which has outgrown its predecessors by 150 pages. It is a 
massive volume of 750 pages, with ampler notes and references, and indexes of 
subjects and of texts, as well as editorial biography and annotations. 

Notwithstanding all the additions and improvements, the cost is reduced two 
thirds from the original series, making it a marvel of cheapness. 

We have here placed within easy reach of every purchaser the complete collec- 
tion of “ The Ante-Nicene Fathers,” carefully translated, corrected, and set in 
historic and progressive order, instead of the partial collection and miscellane- 
ous confusion and important omissions which have hitherto tried the patience 
and diminished the profit of every attentive reader. R. B. Welch. 

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. By Father Chiniquy, the Apostle 
of Temperance of Canada. 8vo, pp. 832. Chicago : Craig & Barlow. 
With steel engraving of the Author. 

This is an extraordinary work by a man of genius who has had the most mar- 
vellous career that can well be imagined. Like Coleridge’s “ Ancient Mariner,” 
this is a tale of personal adventure, told with all the fascinating skill with which 
Sir Walter Scott and Charles Dickens invested their most brilliant fictions. The 
writer is the hero of a hundred battles fought in the ecclesiastical arena in all 
parts of the world. He possesses a mind of singular dramatic power, and is 
equally at home in dialectics and rhetorical art. He is certainly no novice as a 
controversialist, and his style, in French and English, has a charm and spright- 
liness which carries the reader irresistibly along, while it is chastened by the 
experience of many years, and often exhibits the solemnity and pathos oi one 
who seems conscious that he is nearing the eternal world. When about ninety 
years old Dr. Pusey wrote abook on ” Future Punishment, ” which gave evidence 
of unabated mental vigor and keenness in controversy, and Father Chiniquy, in 
his seventy-sixth year, gives us a much more voluminous and powerful discus- 
sion of the tangled, subtile, many-sided theology and practices of the Church of 
Rome. We have here a startling, realistic and vivid interior view of the prac- 
tical workings and outcome of Romanism such as can be found nowhere else. 
This is a voice from within the penetralia of Ultramontanism. The author was 
born and bred in the system, and continued to serve his Church with zeal for 
fifty years. He therefore speaks of what he has seen and heard, and with the 
authority of one who, during that long period, enjoyed the fullest confidence and 



received the warmest official approbation and plaudits of the functionaries of the 
Church from the Pope downward. This gives a force and significance to the 
damaging revelations he makes such as no candid mind can disregard. His 
father studied in the Theological Seminary of the city of Quebec to prepare him- 
self for the priesthood. “ But a few days before making his vows, having been 
the witness of a great iniquity in the high quarters of the Church, he changed 
his mind, studied law, and became a notary.” Before leaving the seminary he 
received from one of the Superiors, as a token of esteem, a beautiful French and 
Latin Bible. This incident in the life of his lather gave our author access to the 
Word of God from childhood, and he was early taught many of its precious les- 
sons by a devout and loving mother. While a lad, between seven and eight 
years old, he had committed to memory choice passages in the Old and New 
Testaments, and was wont to be set on the kitchen table to recite them to groups 
of the friends of the family who assembled to enjoy the spell of his elocutionary 
performances. His education from first to last was the best the institutions of 
the Church could supply, which is always exacting, but in many respects an 
utter waste of time and perversion of heart and intellect. Protestants often err 
in regarding common priests as men of liberal education and profound learning, 
while in reality they are trained almost exclusively in narrow grooves of barren 
mediaeval ecclesiasticism. Father Chiniquy’s case was exceptional. His love of 
biblical knowledge, and native disposition to rely upon his own judgment and 
power to investigate all subjects, boded danger from the first to a system which 
crushes freedom and brands with infamy and eternal penalties independent 
theological and scientific research. Under a mistaken sense of duty, however, 
and by effort of a strong will, he successfully repressed all tendencies to break 
away from the venerable traditions of councils, popes and fathers, and entered 
the priesthood lull of zeal against heretics. As a priest he soon gained the most 
flattering recognition of his distinguished abilities, and it may be safely said 
that no contemporary French Canadian ecclesiastic enjoyed such popularity and 
exerted such influence over his fellow-countrymen. 

In the vast Notre Dame Street Church, Montreal, he frequently preached 
and lectured to assemblies numbering over ten thousand. In the coniessional 
he was a universal favorite, and learned to depict, as he does, its impure and 
enslaving mysteries from a most varied and extensive experience, not only 
among the rank and file of the people, but also as the Father Confessor of 
priests and nuns and the inmates of those large conventual institutions so much 
and so unwisely patronized by Protestants. 

He came into the greatest prominence in Canada, however, as the apos- 
tle of temperance. His labors in this cause were directed to the clergy and 
people, and resulted in a surprising reformation throughout the length and 
breadth of the Province of Quebec. He was first roused and inspired to under- 
take this great work by witnessing the excesses of some of the clergy who pro- 
fessed to instruct their parishioners in sobriety and purity of life. He attacked 
these vices with uncompromising determination and energy. As evidence of the 
success of this campaign we know it to be a fact that a member of a leading 
brewing and distilling firm in Montreal volunteered the statement that ordinary 
efforts to limit their traffic caused them no appreciable inconvenience, but when 
Father Chiniquy took the field, so. powerful was his advocacy, that they were 
soon compelled to seek a foreign market for their goods. All this time his star 
was in the ascendant, and the way appeared open to the highest ecclesiastical 
promotion, but Providence marked out another course. 

His bishop placed him at the head of a great colonization scheme in the State 
of Illinois, by which it was proposed to people those fertile prairies with teeming 
thousands of French Canadians, and to establish Ultramontanism in that region. 
The work was rapidly pushed forward, for the Church can always command, 



through her political dependents and otherwise, abundant resources for such 
purposes ; but, happily for the future freedom and prosperity of that part of the 
State, the head of the colony was being slowly but thoroughly enlightened as to 
the true nature of the system he served, and the volume before us describes with 
graphic power the steps by which he was led to break with the Church and to 
bring out from her communion at once many thousands of his fellow-country- 
men. The account of these movements, and of the bitter and interminable 
opposition and persecutions which he suffered from the hierarchy, is simply 
thrilling. The abuse and reproaches heaped upon him, and the prolonged liti- 
gations into which he was forced, costing many thousands of dollars, would have 
broken down a score of ordinary men, both in purse and reputation. But strong 
friends came opportunely to his aid, and chief among these was Abraham Lin- 
coln — the man whose name adorns the pages of American history as a lawyer, 
philanthropist, statesman and Christian. No one should be ignorant of what 
he did for Chiniquy in his darkest days, or of the venerable father’s ingenious and 
painstaking tracing of the plot which issued in the assassination of the President. 
Whether right or wrong in his belief in this matter, one thing is certain — that lor 
the last twenty-five years he has, scores of times, risked his life in bold and 
incessant efforts to pull down the system which he holds responsible for the mur- 
der of Lincoln. 

Readers of this volume will see that his methods of warfare are his own, and 
he is often impatient of the prudence of timid Protestants, and expresses him- 
self strongly as to their blindness and folly with regard to the dangers to 
human liberty and free institutions on this continent arising from the growth of 
“ the mystery of iniquity.” D. H. MacVicar. 

Church History in Brief. By the Rev. James C. Moffat, D.D., Professor 
of Church History, Princeton. Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of Publica- 
tion. 1885. 

This is an admirable synopsis. Its arrangement is good and its statements 
are clear. It embraces in its survey the leading events of which church history 
is the narrative. It gives prominence to those which are historically of the first 
importance, and either retires the less important to subordinate places, or leaves 
them unmentioned. The name, of the author is sufficient security for its accu- 
racy. Those w'ho have studied church history, and desire a brief and convenient 
manual for review, will find it a very useful volume. John DeWitt. 

Mer (Loir-et-cher) Son Eglise R£formee : Etablissement, vie Interieure, Deca- 
dence, Restauration. Par Paul de Felice, Pasteur. 8vo, pp. 301. Paris, 

This most recent of the monographs upon French Protestant churches is by no 
means among the least important. The author, a worthy son of the professor in 
the Theological School at Montauban, to whom we are indebted for a valuable 
history of the Protestants of France, is himself among the most enthusiastic and 
painstaking of the present generation of historical students. The town which he 
here writes about is a place of no great celebrity, which the traveller might pass 
between Orleans and Blois without particular notice ; but Dr. De Felice has 
investigated its religious history with care, and set forth the result of his 
researches with more than an antiquarian’s enthusiasm. The second book, 
devoted to an attempt to give as clear an idea as practicable of the interior life of 
the church of Mer, as a representative of its sister churches throughout the king- 
dom, is particularly interesting. The author, indeed, states that this part of his 
book has cost him more time and labor than all the rest put together. The 
church buildings, the services of divine worship, the pastors and the consistories, 



together with the “colloques,” or presbyteries, and provincial synods, each 
viewed in respect to its special functions and prerogatives, are discussed at less 
length than we might in many cases desire, but as lully as the general disappear- 
ance of the documents, upon which the discussion must necessarily be based, 
will permit. 

Dr. De F6lice has been fortunate in being able to discover, and in some cases, 
doubtless, to save from destruction, a number of papers bearing upon the fort- 
unes of the Protestants, especially at the time of the Revocation of the Edict of 
Nantes and during the dreary period of a little over a hundred years intervening 
between that disastrous event and the first law granting them toleration under 
Louis XVI. Many Protestants, we know, succeeded in finding their way to Swit- 
zerland, Germany, Holland, England and other countries, including our Ameri- 
can plantations. These were the more fortunate among the number of the per- 
secuted. How those that were less favored were able to maintain themselves at 
home for an entire century, while denied a legal existence, and without any of 
the privileges of public worship, is a curious question which has often p izzled 
the historical student. Dr. De Felice has explained the matter in part, as he has 
certainly shown in a very entertaining manner the ingenious methods to which 
the members of the proscribed reformed communion resorted, in order to obtain 
the rite of marriage for the living, and of honorable burial for the dead. Dr. De 
Felice brings out clearly the unexpected fact that, even in the darkest portions of 
French Protestant history, there seems never to have been a year when the per- 
secuted Huguenots did not receive accessions, more or less numerous, of converts 
from the ranks of their persecutors. Henry M. Baird. 

The following works in the department of History are worthy of notice : Pro- 
legomena to the History of Israel, with a reprint of the article Israel from the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, by Julius Wellhausen, translated from the German, 
under the author’s supervision. With a preface by Professor IV. Robertson 
Smith. (Edinburgh : A. & C. Black.) The publishers have rendered a service to 
the English public by reproducing these two great works of Wellhausen in a 
single volume. They are both apart fragments, and even where they are com- 
bined they are so out of proportion that they must be regarded as monographs. 
And yet it is helpful to compare them in order to see the higher criticism and the 
historical criticism in combination. Wellhausen is doing the same service for 
the Old Testament that Baur did for the New Testament. His radical recon- 
struction of the history and literature of Israel is a brilliant achievement. But it 
is an ideal of what he thinks the development ought to have been rather than a 
scientific statement of what it really was. The service to the Old Testament is 
in calling scholars to a more careful study of the phenomena, in order to elim- 
inate traditional theories from actual historic and literary facts. The publication 
of these monographs in this form will bring them into a larger circle of stu- 
dents. Dictionary of National Biography , Vols. III., IV. ; Baker — Biber. 

Edited by Leslie Stephen. (London : Smith, Elder & Co.) This massive work 
advances steadily in the lines marked out. It is comprehensive of almost all 
names of importance in the history of Great Britain. Occasionally we notice the 
omission of a distinguished name, and then we find names which deserve no 
mention. There is an occasional caprice in the selection. And yet, on the 
whole, the names are better chosen than in any other corresponding work. The 
biographical sketches are, as a rule, careful and thorough, and the authorities are 
given upon which they are based, so that they are introductory to a wider read- 
ing for those who are desirous of further study. American worthies are seldom 
mentioned. We are surprised, however, to find quite a full sketch of James 
Gordon Bennett. We cannot see any propriety in the insertion of this name 
among the very few which represent the United States of America. Either the 



dictionary should limit itself to Great Britain, or else Americans should he dealt 
with on equal terms, and without caprice. It is doubtful, however, whether 

any British editor could do justice to American biography. Geschichte des 

Pietismus. Von Albrecht Ritschl, II. Band, /. Abtkeil. Bonn: Adolph Marcus. 
(New York : B. Westermann & Co.) Ritschl is at present the most distinguished 
divine in Germany. He is the father of a new school in theology. He has en- 
riched dogmatics by his Biblical and Historial studies, so that he is ever fresh and 
stimulating. His method and style are not attractive, so that he is not easy to 
follow. His work on Pietism is of great value. It is a welcome addition to the 
literature of the subject. Piestism was the greatest religious movement in Ger- 
many subsequent to the Reformation. It corresponds with Puritanism and 
Methodism in England. It intervenes between these two great movements in 
Great Britain, and partakes of the characteristics of them both. It was, indeed, 
stimulated in its origin by Puritanism, as it in turn stimulated Methodism, both 
in its rise in Great Britain and in its special phase in the great awakening in 
America. The service of Ritschl is in showing its position in the development of 
German theology. He clearly discriminates those of its features which were genu- 
ine products of Lutheranism from those other features which were new depart- 
ures, either in the direction of the mediaeval Mystic or of the Reformed type of 
doctrine. Ritschl has done great service in tracing Pietism to its roots in the 
vital germs of the Reformation, and to the protest against the serious defects in 
that Lutheran Scholasticism which reduced religion to orthodoxy. Pietism was 
a revival of vital religion, and an earnest effort to realize Christianity, in a holy 
life. It had many of the same defects as Puritanism. There was a tendency to 
fanaticism in the form of new revelations, Millenarianism and Asceticism ; but 
German Pietism, like British Puritanism, eliminated these fanatical elements, 
and forced them to become Separatists. Ritschl has carefully and thoroughly 
traced this process of elimination, and discriminated genuine Pietism from its 
radical and spurious types. There has been a tendency in Germany to confound 
these radical types with the genuine type — just as in Great Britain and Ameri- 
ca there is still a distressing lack of historical discrimination in the use of 
the term Puritan. Spener was the great historical leader of Pietism. In this 
respect he corresponds remarkably with Wesley in his relation to Methodism. 
Puritanism had many great leaders, but no one like Spener or Wesley, in 
whom the movement was brought to a head in such a marked degree. Pietism 
expended itself in the organization of little circles of the pious within the Estab- 
lished Churches of Germany, and discouraged separation. In this it agreed with 
genuine Puritanism. Its fate was, therefore, like that of Puritanism in the 
Established Churches of England and Scotland. It exerted vast influence in 
these Churches, but gradually passed away in more comprehensive movements, 
ft was the separation of the more radical types of Puritanism and the external 
independent organism of Methodism that stereotyped these types of religion, and 
transmitted them to our own times. The history of Pietism, by Ritschl, is one 

of the most important works which have been written in recent times. The 

Origin of Republican Form of Government in the United States of America. 
By. Oscar S. Straus. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.) This is a pleasant 
little book. It has the uncommon fault of attributing too great influence to the 
religious element in the formation of our government. It incorrectly represents 
the Hebrew Commonwealth in the time ct the Judges as an essentially republican 
form of government, and states that our government was modelled very largely 
after it. There can be no doubt that the Puritans were largely influenced by 
the Old Testament in their views of civil and ecclesiastical order ; but it was 
only the extremists among the Puritans who thought of re-establishing the Old 
Testament theocracy. Our government was influenced largely by religious 
forces, but these forces sprang from the habits of the Presbyterian and Congre- 



gational churches in their ecclesiastical courts. It was the ecclesiastical polity 
that influenced the civil polity, and the Old Testament theocracy had only an in- 
direct and mediate influence. We cannot sympathize with the indiscriminate lau- 
dation of Roger Williams as the apostle of liberty of conscience. Lafayette 

Avenue Church : Its history and commemorative Services, i860-’ 85. (New 
York : Robert Carter & Brothers.) The Lafayette Avenue Church and Theo- 
dore L. Cuyler are so closely associated in the public mind that they cannot be 
separated. He is the father of that efficient organization and the centre of all 
its influences for good. There are few ministers of the Gospel who have been 
so successful in winning souls to Christ. There are few churches which have 
grown in a quarter of a century as this church has grown, from a feeble babe to 
an effective and powerful organization. We congratulate the pastor and the 
church upon their wonderful achievements. C. A. Briggs. 


The Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Inspiration : The Carey Lect- 
ures for 1884. By Robert Watts, D.D., Professor of Systematic The- 
ology in the Assembly’s College, Belfast. London : Hodder & Stoughton, 

The questions discussed in this volume are, of course, of the highest impor- 
tance at all times. They relate to the ultimate foundation of our religious faith, and 
to the standard of our belief and duty. Romanists rely upon the authority of an 
inspired Church, Protestants upon the authority of a book rendered an infallible 
standard of religious knowledge by the inspiration of God. All others rely upon 
the conclusions of reason. But the Protestant position has been severely tested 
by modern negative criticism, alike as to text and content of the canon, and as 
to the fact and the extent of its inspiration. All critical and historical questions 
derive their importance from their immediate bearing upon the vital question of 
the authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the extent 
to which they can be relied upon as an infallible informant. The examination 
of this question, therefore, in all the available lights afforded by history, criti- 
cism, science and a true philosophy, is the first duty and interest of the present 

No man has a more complete assemblage of qualifications for the thorough 
and satisfactory examination of these problems than Professor Watts, of Belfast. 
He is well versed in the theories and arguments relied upon by those who are 
hostile to the common doctrine of the evangelical churches since the Reforma- 
tion. He is well versed in the current science of the day, and he is a master in 
the departments of philosophy, speculative theology and the history of Christian 
dogma. He is able, valiant, and thoroughly loyal to the traditions of his Church, 
and to the Westminster standards. 

In the first four chapters, respectively, the author discusses the sources of 
information in regard to the rule of faith and practice ; the province of the senses 
in matters of faith ; the authority of the Church as a teacher ; and the Protes- 
tant doctrine of the rule of faith. 

The chapter which is least satisfactory to us is the fifth, which discusses the 
“ Inspiration of Christ.” We think that the relation of the third Person of the 
blessed Trinity to the Theanthropos, and especially to the Logos as incarnate, is 
too obscure and too delicate to render much dogmatic assertion and inference 
safe or edifying. 



Chapters six to ten, inclusive, are occupied with setting forth the Church doc- 
trine as to the nature and extent of the Inspiration of the Christian Scriptures. 

The doctrine taught by Dr. Watts is in all respects identical with that so ad- 
mirably set forth by Dr. Henry B. Smith in his sermon delivered before the 
Synod of New York and New Jersey, Newark, October, 1855. “Its object” 
(that of Inspiration) “ is the communication of truth in an infallible manner, so 
that when rightly interpreted no error is conveyed. 

“ It comprises both the matter and form of the Bible, the matter in the form 
in which it is conveyed and set forth. It extends even to the language, not in the 
mechanical sense that each word is dictated by the Holy Spirit, but in the sense 
that under divine guidance each writer spoke in his own language, according to 
the measure of his knowledge, acquired by personal experience, the testimony 
of others, or by immediate divine revelation. 

“ So wonderfully do the divine and human elements commingle in Scriptures, 
as do the first and second causes also in all the realm of Providence, that it is 
in vain to limit inspiration to doctrine and truth, excluding history from its 
sphere. The attempt is as unphilosophical as it is unscriptural. No analysis 
can detect such a line of separation. It is both invisible and not to be spiritually 

“ The theory of plenary inspiration, as we have already given it, comprises 
whatever is true in any and all of these views, subordinate to the prime position 

A. A. Hodge. 

Atonement and Law ; or, Redemption in Harmony with Law as Re- 
vealed in Nature. By John M. Armour. Philadelphia : Christian 

Statesman Publishing Co., 1885. 

The author of this book is a respected minister of the Reformed Presbyterian 
(Covenanter) Church. He teaches in it the thorough expiation, satisfaction doc- 
trine of the Atonement maintained by the Reformers, and especially in the stand- 
ards of the Reformed, or Calvinistic churches. So far, of course, we are in per- 
fect sympathy with the author in his work. And we can conceive of the book 
being edifying to certain classes of readers, who would be rather fed by the 
truth it contains than bewildered or scandalized by its attempts at an original 
contribution to the defence and illustration of the doctrine. We have great 
respect and good will to Mr. Armour personally, and we have full confidence that 
his offices as a preacher and teacher are eminently useful, as beyond question 
they are ably and sincerely performed. But our simple duty as honest review- 
ers compels us to state the plain truth that the special doctrine of this book, in 
which it professes to improve and present an original basis for the common doc- 
trine of the atonement, is a pure dream originating in narrow reading and im- 
perfect and inconsistent thinking. 

In the opening chapters he speaks of Law in a general sense, as including 
both natural law as operating in the material world, and moral law as adminis- 
tered in the moral world. He teaches that even in the department of physical 
law punishment always follows transgressions. But subsequently he distinguishes 
rightly between physical and moral law — the one acts as force, and the other as 
commandment. This is true, and therelore it follows necessarily that physical 
and moral law occupy two entirely different spheres, and that it is absurd to rea- 
son from one to the other. There can be no continuity between the operation of 
a force which revolves an atom and a rational and moral commandment which 
appeals to the reason and conscience, and commands the obedience of a moral 
person. Science has to do only with physical forces. Her dictum, therefore, 
that she will “ tolerate no great exception,” every rational student of the moral 
government of God will treat with indifference, as not relevant to the subject in 



question. Is not Christ an exception among the children of women ? Is not the 
Incarnation an exception among divine acts ? 

The author bases his whole argument upon what he proposes as a statement 
of fundamental truth as to “ motion, force and life,” and herein affirms with 
perfect confidence as true in respect to the relation of life and force what is 
known by all naturalists to be absolutely and universally untrue. He says (p. 39) : 
‘‘All motion is from vital force.” The exact truth is that no motion is from 
vital force. Indeed, the term vital force is acknowledged to be absurd. All the 
forces which build up a tree, or which are employed in the growth of an animal, 
or which move his limbs in obedience to his will, are without any exception the 
same physical forces which operate in the inorganic world. What is called life 
is simply a directive, architectonic influence which guides the physical forces in 
their action. It is never the direct cause of motion, and becomes its indirect 
occasion only by guiding the physical forces it influences into conditions of un- 
stable equilibrium. 

He refers the origin of mathematical axioms and ultimate moral principles to 
the same will of God which gives us Christ as a substitute to die for our redemp- 
tion. And he does not see that if this be so there was either no grace in giving 
Christ because there was no alternative choice open to God, or there was no 
necessity for the giving of Christ in order to secure human redemption. Because 
if God had an alternative in the matter of giving Christ He had an alternative in 
enforcing the moral sanctions of the law. He appears not to have known that 
this precise doctrine as to axioms and moral principles, being a product of the 
will of God, was and is the philosophical basis of the governmental theory of the 
Atonement which he rightly rejects. Grotius held that, since the law and its 
sanctions were a product of the divine will, they could be relaxed by the divine 
will. And the purpose to relax would be just as eternal and original as the 
purpose to enact. 

The author says that law never can in any case be satisfied by the transgressor. 
Why not ? If a subject of municipal law commits a crime, then while serving 
out his whole penalty in prison repents and reforms, why, when he comes out at 
the expiration of his time, is not the law in his case completely satisfied ? Why 
should he not be at once fully reinstated in its legal rights as a member of human 
society ? 

But his main point is that the Substitionary work of Christ in the stead of men, 
whereby both in doing and suffering the will of law he fully satisfied the de- 
mands of the law in their case, is no great exception — that, on the contrary, 
“ Substitution is normal in Law.” ‘‘Law in its whole range and extent, and 
in all the ways in which it is made known to us, reveals wondrous provision for 
substitution.” To prove this he has nothing but (1) repeated assertion ; (2) 
Bushnell’s conception of vicarious suffering, as of the mother for her sick child ; 
(3) the vicarious payment of debts and of fines. 

In order to support this, the great doctrine of the book, he denies as sound 
and impugns as dangerous the self-evident and indubitable distinction between 
a penal and a commercial satisfaction, which is adopted by Turrettin in common 
with all competent thinkers, legal or theological. Our author satisfies himself by 
quoting the unquestioned commercial language of Scripture when treating of the 
atoning work of Christ. This argument results from an absurd exegetical use 
of metaphorical language. Metaphor is universal and unavoidable. It is the 
basis of all human thought and language. The Bible does, of course, use both 
commercial and strictly legal language when speaking of sin sometimes as a 
debt and sometimes as a crime. And this language is to be reverently inter- 
preted in conformity with the general use of such metaphors in Scripture. It is 
used because there are many points of coincidence between sin and debt, and 
between redemption by Christ and a satisfaction for debt. But it does not follow 



that there is no distinction, that sin and debt, that redemption and the payment 
ol a debt, are alike in all particulars. When God is called a Rock, it does not 
follow that He is in all respects a Rock. When grace is represented as water, 
or as salt, or as leaven, or as oil, it does not follow that grace is in all respects 
either water, or salt, or leaven, or oil, much less that there is no distinction be- 
tween water and oil. 

For ourselves, we continue to believe, and we summon all Christian scien- 
tists to agree with us, that while the work of Christ was under law, and fully 
satisfied law in our stead, the gift of Christ to be our substitute (which includes 
at once the dedication of His precious person to be a substitute and the accept- 
ance of Him and His work as a substitute), is in all the universe the stupen- 
dous exception, a work of sovereign grace without precedent or analogy in 
the past, or possible repetition in the luture. A. A. Hodge. 

The World the Subject of Redemption. By W. H. Fremantle, M.A., 
Canon of Canterbury. New York : E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1885. 

This is the Bampton Lecture for 1883. If one will compare it with the Bamp- 
ton Lecture for 1867, by Garbett, On the Dogmatic Faith, he will be struck with 
the difference of opinion that exists in the English Church, and see what con- 
trary children are struggling within one womb. 

The first lecture contains the thesis which leavens the whole eight of which 
the volume is composed. Starting with the proposition, which no one will dis- 
pute, that Christianity is to become a universal religion, the author then explains 
Christianity in such a wide and loose way as to make it include ethics and nat- 
ural religion, and whatever of truth appears in the spontaneous operation of the 
religious sentiment in every age and nation. The progress of Christianity is 
thus the progress of human nature, as seen in human civilization and culture 

The author complains that the common view of Christianity makes it an exclu- 
sive religion. “ Protestant theology,” he says (p. 7), “ centring in the doctrine 
of justification by faith, has narrowed the notion of faith, so as to take no notice 
of that half-conscious or embryo faith which operates very widely as a general 
and national sentiment.” Again, he remarks (p. 7) that "salvation is looked 
upon merely as the deliverance of individuals. The idea of the salvation of 
society has been ignored.” He finds " the common Church teaching” defective 
on this point ; and asserts that “ it is more than questionable whether it conveys 
a sound doctrine as to the true aim and hopes of the race. Like St. Augustine 
in the De Civitate, it has drawn out the contrast between the worldly and the 
heavenly cities, and has represented the heavenly society as using the earthly 
only as a stranger might usej'an inn, on its way to a better land ” (p. 8). 

This Canon Fremantle thinks needs correcting. The aim of the Church should 
be to become universal not so much by the regeneration of individual men, one 
by one, as by the liberalizing of doctrine, and receiving into itself the existing 
elements of truth and morality to be found among men generally. ” The ideal 
of life presented by Sakyamuni, Mohammed, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Lorenzo 
de Medici, and Goethe, must be made to combine with our present Christian 
morality, partly be purified by it, and partly be allowed to amplify our idea of 
what is morally good and Christian. Some of the Utopias of modern revolution- 
ists yet contain an element of truth and self-renouncing love. They all have in 
them some germ of the spirit of Christ, which touches the springs (sic) of all 
that is good in human nature. All goodness is essentially one, and, therefore, 
essentially Christian” (pp. 23, 26). 

This obliterates the distinctions between the Church and the world which are 
represented in Scripture as contraries, excluding each other. If Christianity 
shall become universal by the method of the lecturer the Church will be trans- 


18 ? 

muted into the world. The theory overlooks the corruption of man, and assumes 
that the problem before Christianity is to develop the natural religiousness of 
the human soul. Through the whole book there is an ominous reticence respect- 
ing the atonement of Christ and the regenerating agency of the Holy Spirit, and 
much insisting upon the practice of virtue as constituting the substance of the 
Christian life. 

An attempt is made to support this view by Scripture. “ In the first chapter 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” says the author (p. 15), “ the human race is 
spoken of as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be the 
adopted children of God.” But St. Paul connects this divine choice with the 
Church , not with the race. “ He hath blessed us and chosen us in him, 

that we should be holy, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children” 
(Eph. i. 3-5). The intent of God in redemption is that “ unto the principalities 
and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wis- 
dom of God ” (Eph. iii. 10). The author misquotes Scripture. To prove that 
“ all goodness is essentially one, and therefore essentially Christian,” and that 
“ there was a preparatio evangelica going on among all nations similar to that 
in the Hebrew race,” he says that they “ were seeking the Lord, if haply they 
might feel after Him and find Him.” The words of St. Paul are : “ That they 
should seek after the Lord.” 

The secularization of Christianity and the Church is one of the evil tendencies 
of the day, and is one phase of the universalism which the Church is now called 
upon to oppose. It is the repetition within the province of doctrinal theology 
of an attempt often made in former ages in practical propagandism. The Papal 
Church once sought to make Christianity a universal religion by adopting and 
christening Pagan rites and ceremonies. Charlemagne would provide universal 
salvation for the Saxons, by forcing them to be baptized at the point of the sword. 
Now, the attempt is to make the Christian religion a universal religion by empty- 
ing it of its distinguishing tenets, flattering it into a system of morality, and con- 
verting “ the righteousness which is of faith” into “ the righteousness which is 
of the law.” W. G. T. Shedd. 

Christ and Christianity : Being Studies on Christology, Creeds and Confes- 
sions, Protestantism and Romanism, Reformation Principles, Sunday Observ- 
ance, Religious Freedom and Christian Union. By Philip Schaff, D.D., 
LL.D. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons. 8vo, pp. 310. 

The title of this volume is sufficiently descriptive of its contents. Dr. Schaff 
has skilfully thrown together in one book three series of studies in which he has 
been much engaged during his laborious and fruitful life as a Christian scholar. 
The first series is Christological : Christ his own best witness, and Christ in 
theology — in the thoughts and creeds of Christendom. The first of these 
essays is largely a condensation of the views presented in the admirable volume 
first published by the author a quarter of a century ago, and now issued by the 
American Tract Society, entitled ” The Person of Christ.” The second is an 
expansion of the excellent article on “ Christology” by Dr. Schaff in his Relig- 
ious Encyclopaedia. No better condensation of diversified opinion on what must 
ever be the central theme of devout meditation among Christians can well be 

In the second series, entitled “ Polemical and Irenical Studies,” the most con- 
spicuous paper is the one read by Dr. Schaff at the first session of the Presbyterian 
Alliance at Edinburgh, in 1877, on the “ Consensus of the Reformed Confes- 
sions.” It presents his matured views in respect to the possibility and the im- 
portance of finding a point of harmony among the various Protestant creeds, and 
of stating what might thus be recognized as the essential faith of evangelical 
Christendom. Whether it was, in fact, practicable for the Presbyterian Alliance 



to undertake the task of formulating such a Consensus — a question which the 
Council at Belfast decided in the negative — we cordially agree with the author 
in believing that such a Confession “ would be a testimony to the living faith of 
the Church, and a bond of union among the different branches of the Reformed 
family,” and that its preparation “ would afford an excellent opportunity both to 
simplify and popularize the Reformed system of doctrine, and to utter a protest 
against the peculiar errors and dangers of our age.” Dr. Schaff has embodied 
the same views in the accompanying essay on ” Creeds and Confessions of Faith” 
— an essay well worth careful perusal. 

In the third series the author has introduced, under the general title of “ Mor- 
als and Social Studies,” his discussions of Slavery and the Bible, of the Christian 
Sabbath, and of Religious Freedom — the last from the North American Review 
for April, 1884, with some enlargement. The plea for the American, as con- 
trasted wdth what has been called the Continental Sabbath, is especially forcible. 
The series concludes with the admirable paper on the “ Discord and Concord of 
Christendom,” presented by the author during the recent conferences of the Evan- 
gelical Alliance at Copenhagen. This paper discusses the grave and pressing 
question of denominational variety and Christian unity. While it recognizes the fact 
that denominations may and even must exist, and that organic union is probably 
not to be realized in any near era of Christian development, it argues for unity 
as an end to be earnestly sought by all believers — unity in spirit, in doctrine, in 
morals, in worship. In a word, it pleads for Christian catholicity as an essential 
preliminary to any and all actual unification of Christendom before the world. 

These studies are fitly introduced by the address delivered by Dr. Schaff on 
the occasion of his inauguration as Professor in Union Seminary, in 1871. His 
theme on that occasion was ” The Theology of our Age and Country,” and the 
address was in part an earnest plea for Christian theology in its various depart- 
ments and relations. Its most interesting portion is a discussion of the question 
whether there is to be a distinctive American theology — a theology born on this 
continent, and marked by the characteristics peculiar to our national type of 
thought and life. Among the conditions favorable to the development of such a 
theology are named the voluntary principle, with separation between Church and 
State, stimulating to freedom and vigor in theological inquiry ; the commingling 
of denominations in such close contact as constrains comparison of opinion and 
consequent breadth of opinion ; and the prevalent spirit of Christian catholicity 
and union, contributing in like manner to comprehensiveness of view and a true 
spiritual liberality in belief as well as in life. The discussion cannot fail to 
profit those who read it, though it may seem to present a sketch of some remote 
and high ideal, rather than any result likely to be soon realized. Certainly there 
are grounds for hoping that there will come an age when there shall be in very 
truth what may justly be called an American Theology. E. D. Morris. 

Evangelische Polemik gegen die Romische Kirche. Von Paul Tscha- 
kert, Doktor der Theologie und der Philosophic. 8vo, pp. 441. Gotha: 
Friedrich Andreas Perthes. 1885. New York : B. Wesfermann & Co. 

Handbooks of Romish controversy in the English, French and German lan- 
guages are not rare, yet there is room, and more than room, for Dr. Tschakert’s 
book. It supplies a want. This will be apparent from a glance at the titles of 
the six books into which the work is divided. These are : (1) The Church and 
its Dogmas ; (2) Romish and Evangelical Ethics ; (3) Cultus in Catholicism and 
in Protestantism ; (4) The Fundamental Difference in Church Law ; The Romish 
Ecclesiastical system of Finance ; The Relation of the Churches to the Modern 
State ; (5) The Growth of the Churches in the most Recent Times ; (6) Ques- 
tions of the Time. To these divisions, of which the first is necessarily the larg- 
est, are prefixed : (1) a statement of the author’s standpoint ; (2) a review of the 



subjects to be treated ; and (3) an exhibition of the ground, doctrinal and prac- 
tical, held in common by the adherents of the Romish and Protestant churches. 
The conclusion of the work is “ An Outlook into the Future,” which questions 
the judgment and treatment that Protestantism is likely to meet with from Rome, 
and the possibility of a union between these presently antagonistic forces. 
About forty pages of references constitute an appendix of great value. Many of 
these are to Oehler’s “ Manual ol Symbolic yet a great host of authorities, 
some patristic and scholastic, but most of them post-Reformation and post- 
Tridentine, including the most recent literature, are appealed to. 

The author shows plainly that the Romanism of to-day is almost, if not alto- 
gether, a unit, and that unit is Vaticanism, Ultramontanism, Jesuitism. To 
oppose this great power, energizing toward the enslavement of humanity by a 
worse than heathen despotism, stand, not a collection of divided and semi-antag- 
omstic forces, but the Evangelical Church, every section of which believes in the 
Church Catholic, a moral and spiritual power in the world, battling for the high- 
est form of freedom. He truly declares that the weapons of modern philosophy 
are useless against Rome, and that the ground of the contest must be the divine 
revelation which that Church professes to receive. Nevertheless the polemic is 
thoroughly philosophical in treatment, as might be expected from a German 
divine, and many scientific and common-sense arguments are adduced in sup- 
port of reformed doctrine and practice, and in the refutation of Romish error. 
Dr. Tschakert will deal with Romanism neither in the guise of a Lutheran nor in 
that of a Calvinist, but rather, although he does not say so, according to the con- 
sensus of the United Prussian Church. His idea of the philosophical principle 
underlying the division of these two chief members of Evangelical Christendom 
is that which concerns the relation of God to the world. The Lutheran says, 
“ humanum capax divini /' the Calvinist, " finitum non est capax infiniti." 
Whatever justice there may be in the assignment respectively of such philosoph- 
ical principles, which we are much disposed to call in question, the author holds 
that they and the distinction they create are not of the essence of Evangelical 
Protestantism. The cardinal points on which Lutherans and Calvinists agree, in 
opposition to Rome, he maintains to be : (1) Salvation entirely of God's free 
grace ; (2) the kingdom of God or Church, to consist not of priestly orders, but 
of the faithful, to whom ministry is due ; (3) the only infallible Guide, the Script- 
ures declared to us and made plain to us by the Holy Ghost. 

The plan of the polemic, following the divisions already set forth, is to present 
from Romish, and especially from the most recent Romish, writers, a true view 
of their systems of doctrine and practice ; to analyze the systems, thus unveiling 
their fallacies of reasoning or lack of authority ; and then to place in contrast the 
evangelical systems. This is done in a very judicial and temperate way, the 
contrasted systems being allowed their full weight in the judgment of the reader. 
Much use is, ol course, made of ecclesiastical history in exhibiting the inconsis- 
tencies and contradictions of Rome herself from age to age. Dr. Tschakert 
shows that the principle underlying the corruption of Romish dogma is “ the 
theory of a hierarchy, prior and superior to the assembly ol believers, who truly 
constitute the Church.” The same principle corrupts Christian ethics, for it 
supplants the individual conscience by the Pope. And it is the destruction of all 
true cultus or worship, which is impossible through priestly mediation. 

The fourth and two following books are hardly polemic in the ordinary use of 
the term, but they carry the war into the heart of the enemy’s camp by exhibit- 
ing the rapacity, deceit and intolerance of freedom by which Rome is character- 
ized. The fifth book, which is on the growth of the churches, contains valuable 
statistics, those of the United States coming down, however, no later than 1879 ! 
and a comparison of the propaganda with evangelical missions. The Questions 
of the Time are especially interesting, not only to ecclesiastics, but also to all 



who have the well-being of society at heart. Some of these questions are : Civil 
and Mixed Marriages ; the Ultramontane Press ; the Social Question ; Celibacy 
and the Pastor's Family ; Modern Old Catholicism. In discussing the Social 
Question, by which German writers mean everything that vitiates society, the 
author holds that all the evils against which the Protestant Church has fought 
have either been indirectly countenanced by the Papacy, or are the results of its 
enslavement of the intellect. A passage in this connection will illustrate the 
style of the book. “ Why has the Pope never fulminated his anathema against 
the gambling hell of Monaco ? If there is a hell upon earth it stands upon the 
enchanting cliffs of Monte Carlo, on the Paradise-like shore of the Mediterranean, 
where, year out and year in, out of the three to four hundred thousand strangers 
who sojourn there, thousands and thousands more play away fortune, wealth, 
and heaven beside. Nowhere does suicide display secretly and openly its track 
of blood as there. Since the lessee of this institute of horrors is a Roman Cath- 
olic, and the Prince of Monaco as well, a wink from the Holy Father would 
suffice to close this place of destruction. This Principality of La Roulette is 
even so piously Catholic that no Protestant chapel dare be built there, and that 
of the Anglicans was recently closed with military violence. For Romish Church 
buildings the lessee of the bank spent many millions, six millions for two build- 
ings alone, and the Romish Church received the wages ol sin. In heretical 
Germany gambling hells are abolished and public morality strengthened ; in 
good Catholic Monaco people will go on playing and— getting absolution.” 

Dr. Tschakert is a writer who knows his subject and how to state clearly what 
he knows. His matter is, much of it, fresh and interesting, his style pleasing, 
his plan scientific, and the spirit breathed in his book is evangelical. Fully con- 
scious of Rome’s great power and incessant activity, he yet has strong faith that 
the Evangelical Church Catholic, which, spite of its divisions, approaches the 
realization of the kingdom of God, will prevail, and that speedily. 

John Campbell. 

“ Defence and Confirmation” of the Faith. Six Lectures Delivered before 
the Western Theological Seminary , in the year 1885, on the Foundation of the 
Elliott Lectureship. (New York : Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.) This foundation 
is a well-deserved monument of our venerated friend and colleague, Dr. David 
Elliott, for thirty-eight years Professor in the Western Theological Seminary. 
“ For the purity of his life, tor the beauty of his moral character, for the abun- 
dance of his labors in the Church, and especially for his eminent services as pro- 
fessor of theology, this honor is peculiarly due to his revered memory.” This 
series of six lectures are among the auspicious firstfruits of this endowment, 
having been preceded only by the lectures of Rev. Professor A. F. Mitchell on 
the Westminster Assembly. Each of the six lectures is upon a separate topic, 
and from a different author. Dr. William M. Taylor, of New York, lectured on 
the “ Argument from the Messianic Prophecies.” President Carroll Cutler, 
D.D., of Cleveland, O., lectured on the “ Philosophy of Religion Considered as 
Pointing to a Divine Redeemer.” The subject of the Rev. Dr. S. G. McPherson, 
of Chicago, was “ Jesus Christ, the Unique Reconciler of Contradictories in 
Thought and Character.” Rev. Nathaniel West, D.D., delivered “ An Apologetic 
for the Resurrection of Christ.” President S. F. Scovel lectured on ‘ Christian- 
ity and Civilization,” Rev. Dr. H. C. McCook on ” Foreordination in Nature.” 
All are truly admirable and very valuable. Two, those of Dr. West and of Dr. 
McCook, appear to us to be very remarkable. Dr West is doing the Church 
a service most opportune and valuable by his apologetic lectures in some of our 
great cities, and a service which no man in America is able to perform as per- 
fectly as himself. There ought to be raised a sufficient and permanent fund for 
the support of Dr. West while he spends his liie and strength in rendering Christ 



glorious and in scattering his enemies in confusion. The Coming of the Lord. 

By Rev. John C. Rankin, D.D. (New York : Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.) This 
is a short, lucid, convincing, and thoroughly evangelical defence of the Church 
doctrine as to the time and concomitants of the Second Coming of our Lord. 
The unscriptural and unprofitable character of the Premillennial Advent theory 

is clearly exposed. The Inspiration of Scripture : An Examination into its 

Meaning, Origin and Theories Thereon. By the Rev. Richard W. Hiley, D.D., 
Vicar of Wighill, in Yorkshire — “ I believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the 
Prophets” (Nicene Creed). (London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1885, pp. 68.) 
This is a very short and readable defence of the real inspiration of the sacred 
volume, so as to constitute it the Word of God, and an infallible rule of faith and 

practice. facob Boehme : His Life and Teaching j or, Studies iti Theosophy. 

By the late Dr. Hans Sassen Martensen, Metropolitan of Denmark. Translated 
from the Danish by T. Rhys Evans. (London : Hodder & Stoughton, 1885.) 
This book is one of great interest, because both of its subject and its author. 
Bishop Martensen is certainly one of the most original of modern orthodox the- 
ologians. Jacob Boehme was the father and fountain-head of German theosophy. 
The bishop has here furnished a short biography to introduce his subsequent 
chapters, which accomplish admirably his double purpose of expounding 
Boehme's views and method as a whole, and of setting forth his own contribu- 
tion to the solution of the problems with which Boehme deals. The Witness 

of the Church to the Christian Faith. By James Mulchaney, S.T.D., St, Paul’s 
Chapel, Trinity Parish, New York. (New York : James Pott & Co., 1885.) This 
is a volume of sermons of moderate ability but of good intention, written from 

the standpoint of high church Anglican orthodoxy. Guide to the Perplexed 

of Maimonides. Translated from the original and annotated by M. Fried- 
lander, Ph.D., three volumes. (London : Triibner & Co., 1885.) This is an ex- 
cellent translation of the last and greatest work of Maimonides (born at Cordova, 
1135, died at Cairo, 1204), the great Jewish systematizer of the scholastic age, 
who, while thoroughly orthodox, inaugurated a rational development in Juda- 
ism, and occasioned intense controversies and protracted divisions. The present 
work contains, first, an introduction ; second, discussion of homonymous, figura- 
tive and hybrid terms ; third, relates to the Supreme Being and His relation to the 
universe, according to the Katam ; fourth, concerns the Primal Cause and its 
relations to the universe, according to the philosophers ; fifth, esoteric exposition 
of some portions of the Bible — e.g., the history of creation, prophecy, and the 

description of the divine chariot. The Contemporary Evolution of Religious 

Thought in England, America and India. By Count Goblet d’Alviella, Pro- 
fessor of Comparative Theology in the University of Brussels, and formerly 
member of the Belgian House of Representatives. Translated by J. Moden. (New 
York : G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1886.) This is a very able, scholarly and readable 
book, written by an eminent master in the department of comparative religions. 
It is conceived and executed wholly from the point of view of rationalism, but is re- 
spectful in spirit, and highly instructive in the mass of information it conveys as 
to the progress of modern free thought in the English-speaking world, and as to 
the various forms it has assumed. Of course, it must be understood that the 
writer is proportionably ignorant of the real strength and life of dogmatic Chris- 
tianity in the masses of the great communions, and of the unparalleled power 
and success of modern evangelical missions. A. A. Hodge. 




Sermons on the Christian Life. By John De Witt, D.D. New York : 

Charles Scribner’s Sons. 

These are not merely sermons ON the Christian life ; they are equally sermons 
FOR it. They are not essays, but appeals ; not disquisitions, but addresses. In the 
brief preface the author tells us that these sermons were “ written and preached 
when he was a pastor.” He need not have told us that, for the fact is clearly 
revealed in the sermons themselves. Not only do the style and language reveal 
the pastor’s hand, but the subjects and their development show the pastor's 
heart. There is a good lesson in homiletics in the second clause of the preface : 
“ As the sermons were prepared, not for publication, but for delivery before the 
writer’s congregation, their style and language often approach those of familiar 
conversation.” (If that were not so the sermons might be read, but they cer- 
tainly could not be preached.) ” In addressing his parishioners, a preacher feels 
that he is at liberty to indulge in abrupt turns of speech, in sentences rhetorically 
incomplete, and in repetitions, which, in an essay, would be out of place. The 
form of the sermon is determined by the relations of the preacher to his audience 
quite as much as it is by his theme.” The only objection to this is, that what is 
here represented as the liberty of the pulpit should be acknowledged as its law. 
Religious essays are not sermons. The idea of personal address should always 
control and determine what our author calls “ the form of the sermon” from the 
beginning to the conclusion. Dr. De Witt understands and has obeyed this law, 
and that obedience has given life and power to his preaching. The volume be- 
fore us contains twenty-seven sermons, among which it is difficult to select any 
for especial commendation, because all are so good. There is an element of 
manliness and vigor which is noticeable in all of these sermons. None of them 
are commonplace or weak ; on the contrary, they are fresh, scholarly, and forci- 
ble. The structure of the sermons is unusually careful and workmanlike ; the 
laws of method are uniformly respected. The foot-notes, which are not infre- 
quent, show careful and wide reading and study. The sermons are all practical, 
and yet a strong substratum of doctrine is more or less visible everywhere. If 
we were to criticise anything in this volume it would be the title, which we would 
change to “ Sermons for the Christian Life.” Thomas S. Hastings. 

Consecrated Culture : Memorials of Benjamin Alfred Gregory, M.A. Oxon. 

By Benjamin Gregory, D.D. London : Woolmer. 1885. 

This memoir of a remarkable son by an eminent father gives us two things : 
an alliance of Wesleyan simplicity and fervor with modern scholarly culture, and 
a glimpse of one of those remarkable ministries which, though ended at a very 
early age— in this instance twenty-six — are eminently fruitful, reminding us of 
the best days of the Christian Church. 

It is proverbially a difficult task for a son to write the memoir of his father, but 
it is more difficult for a father to write the memoir of his son. If the one is apt 
to be blinded by excess of reverence, the other is apt to be blinded by excess of 
complacency. We cannot say that Dr. Gregory has avoided this risk. The 
memoir would have gained by the omission of many things, fascinating to a 
parent, but not by any means so interesting to the general public. It would have 
told better, too, by a more severe style of narrative ; it is better for readers to find 
out Admirable Crichtons for themselves than to be told to witness them. But 
one cannot but feel deeply for a bereaved father reproducing an image which to 
him was faultless, and in a tone which reminds us of Tennyson’s ” In Memo- 



Young Gregory, full of talent from the beginning, was reared in the best 
atmosphere of Wesleyanism, and sympathized very thoroughly with all that is 
best in its views and spirit. The question arose, Ought such a man to be sent to 
Oxford ? Hardly any Wesleyans who had studied there with distinction had come 
out Wesleyans ; the Church current was all too strong. In proportion to their 
success and distinction as students, and the companionship they had gained with 
the presiding spirits of the place, was the tendency to be sucked into the whirl- 
pool of the Church of England. Dr. Gregory, who in his day had served his 
Church in Oxford as a preacher, knew the place and knew his son, and delib- 
erately concluded that he might trust him. The event justified his decision. 
Young Gregory, while rising to great distinction, resisted all the splendid pros- 
pects of advancement which the Church of England presented ; more than that, 
he resisted the greater congeniality to a man of culture which the atmosphere 
and surroundings of the Church afforded, especially when contrasted with the 
somewhat narrow fellowship and pursuits of the life of a Wesleyan preacher. 
While an enthusiastic student, especially in philosophy and Church history, and 
while proving himself, by his articles in the London Quarterly and elsewhere, 
well able to grapple with their greatest problems, Gregory was never turned 
from the simplicity of the Christian faith, nor from the idea of the Wesleyan min- 
istry as the best channel for the activities of his life. We ascribe his steadfast- 
ness, under God, to two things : first, the simplicity, strength, and purity of his 
personal faith ; and, second, the happy influence of his family and friends, among 
whom he had seen Wesleyanism at its best, so that its reflection from their char- 
acter and example secured lor it his highest esteem and affection. 

On leaving the University, after a brief mastership in a grammar school, Greg- 
ory was settled as minister in a little Cornwall town, among whose simple people 
he applied himself with unwearied energy to all the duties of the ministry. Very 
laborious was his life at all times ; his pulpit duties most assiduously prosecuted, 
his pastoral work attended to with diligence and tact, and extra work undertaken 
with cheerfulness and unsparing self-denial. We have been much struck with 
the remarkable pains he took to prepare for a mission in the town, as well as to 
carry it into effect. Ministers who imagine that “ a week of meetings,” without 
anything else, will secure the desired result, may study with profit the great 
pains taken first of all to rouse the Church to prayer and expectation, to train the 
choir, to disseminate tracts, and in other ways raise the temperature of the 
Church as a preliminary to the mission and an indispensable requisite for outside 
blessing. The blessing came largely in this case, and the main instrumentality 
was Mr. Gregory’s preaching. 

Very soon after he got a chill through exposure ; his throat became affected, 
diphtheria ensued, and in a few days he was dead. 

In dealing with border-land questions between philosophy and religion, Mr. 
Gregory was very desirous that believers should fully acknowledge all facts on 
the side of philosophy and science, and frankly allow them their fair influence 
and weight ; while he was equally concerned that tentative hypotheses should 
not be set up hastily as established theories and tests of scientific orthodoxy. 
While holding, in the main, to the antithesis of matter and mind, he felt strongly 
that we had much yet to learn regarding the nature of their relation to each 
other, and that all the investigations of the physiologists in that delicate region 
should be treated by spiritualists with high regard. 

In regard to questions of theology between Wesleyans and Calvinists, Mr. 
Gregory, while accepting the view of the former, does not appear to have studied 
them profoundly. Nor does he seem to have given his attention to the questions 
raised by modern criticism. Church history was his favorite theological depart- 
rhent, as history, viewed philosophically, was one of his most cherished studies in 
the field of general literature. Dr. Flint’s treatment of the philosophy of history 



was in the right line, but very inadequate. Schlegel’s and Bunsen's attempts to 
make human history simply the progress and realization of men’s relation to God 
were not enough. In the grand field of discovering the plan on which our race, 
as a whole, and in its parts, is moving, the principles on which the plan is con- 
structed, and the object to which it is directed, the great harvest yet remained to 
be reaped. 

The early removal of a man of such parts and promise w'as not only a loss to 
Wesleyanism, but to the whole Christian Church. W. G. Blaikie. 

Die Gemeinde-ordnung in den Pastoralbriefex. Yon Dr. Ernst Kuhl. 

New York: B. Westermann & Co. 

In this volume Dr. Kuhl, of Breslau, discusses briefly, but with clearness, can- 
dor, and ability, questions that have been raised respecting the authorship and 
date of composition of the pastoral epistles. After a short introduction he 
proceeds to consider in detail the church-order contained in these epistles and 
expressed in such terms as bishop, presbyter, deacon, laying-on of hands, or- 
dination, ministry, etc. By the results thus obtained he tests the negative crit- 
icisms of Baur and Holtzmann (the so-called Tendenzkritik), rejecting it as al- 
together untenable. He then takes up the hypotheses of Hatch and others as to 
the origin of the Episcopate and Presbyterate, points out their insufficiency, and 
sets forth his own view. He is emphatic in asserting the essential identity of 
i-ioKo-oi and TrptajlvTepot from the beginning, wherever both names existed. He 
rejects the theory of the gradual natural growth of the Monarchical Episcopate 
out of pre-existing relations, believing rather that the thought of centralization 
sprang up in the heads of certain men of large influence and through their united 
efforts won its way to general recognition. 

Dr. Kuhl concludes by saying that the church-order which they depict shows 
plainly that the pastoral epistles must have been written before the close of the 
first century ; and that in his opinion it is impossible to assign any intelligible 
purpose to a forger of these epistles during the second half of the first century. 

G. L. Prentiss. 

Books for Practical Edification : 

In His Steps. By J. R. Miller. (Philadelphia: Presb. Bd. Publication). This 
is described in the title as “a book for young Christians setting out to follow 
Christ.” Books of this kind are much needed, and if well prepared, perform a 
very good service. The present one is fresh, readable, and earnest, and in so 
far well adapted to its purpose. A little stronger doctrinal infusion would im- 
prove it. How can young Christians, or, for that matter, the older, grow in 
grace without constant reference to the cross and to the agency of the Spirit. No 
doubt this is implied in Mr. Miller's book, but it needs to be expressed and em- 
phasized. Womanhood. By the Rev. J. H. Worcester, Jr. (Ibid.) The au- 

thor treats his subject under the five heads : Ideal Womanhood, Purpose, Occu- 
pation, Adornment and Influence, and upon each of these he discourses with 
insight, vigor and unusual good sense. The little volume was well worthy of 
being put into the Westminster Cheap Series, so as to obtain a wide circu- 
lation. Mr. Worcester writes in a pleasing way, and his pages are so interesting 
that a young woman who once*began to read would be sure to finish the whole, 

which she could not do without profit. Missionsstunden. Von R. W. Pietel. 

(Leipzig : Lehman). Westermann & Co. send us this neat pamphlet, the 
second heft of a series ol sketches of the various fields in which the Church is 
seeking to spread the Gospel. Farther India, Madagascar and Jamaica are here 
treated. The author shows great skill in the selection of topics, and a fine spirit 
in his mode of treatment. Such works are of immense service in awakening 
and stimulating a true missionary zeal. What the bulk of Christians most re- 



quire is information as to the need, the character, the methods and the results 
of work in the foreign field. We are glad to see by such publications as the one 
before us that our German brethren are alive as to the use of the press in this 
great enterprise.—. — My Sermon-Notes. By Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. (R. Carter 
& Bros.). The success of a previous volume on texts from the first half of the 
Old Testament has prompted the issue of this one which takes its themes from the 
second half. The plan is to give a full analysis of each text and then subjoin a 
page or two of remarks or illustrations. The volume, like all others of its kind, 
will be useful if studied for the sake of learning how to get at and bring forth the 
truth in any given passage, but will be just the reverse if made to furnish material 
for the reader’s own pulpit expositions. Intellectual and spiritual barrenness is 
the sure result of such an indolent and vicious habit.. Apostolic Life , as Re- 

vealed in the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. III. By Joseph Parker, D.D. (New 
York : Funk & Wagnalls). This volume completes the series of Dr. Parker’s 
prelections on the important book which relates the founding of the Christian 
Church. There is no exposition save in the shape of amendments of the Author- 
ized Version, or occasional brief explanations, inserted in brackets in the portions 
treated of. The discourses are marked by the author’s usual characteristics of 
freshness, vivacity, and direct dealing with the heart and the conscience. Hence, 
while neither profound nor eloquent, they are well calculated to interest and im- 
press, and one does not wonder at the popularity of the minister of the City Tem- 
ple in Holborn Viaduct. Each lecture is preceded by a prayer, which usually 
is a good specimen of what a prayer ought not to be. The utterance is often a 
mere soliloquy, and, when it is not, is so wordy and rhetorical and overstrained 

that it is far more like an elaborate declamation than a devotional exercise. 

Expository Sermons and Outlines on the Old Testametit. (New York : A. C. 
Armstrong & Son.) This is a new volume of the “Clerical Library.” Its con- 
tents are by such men as Bishop Alexander, Dean Bradley, Professor A. B. David- 
son, Canon Liddon, Archdeacon Farrar, Dr. A. Maclaren and Dr. Joseph Parker. 
They are “ all gathered from fugitive or unpublished sources,” and are therefore 
printed without revisal by their authors, but there appears on the face no reason 
to question their general accuracy. They are of service to the clerical reader as 
indicating the trend of thought in our day and the spirit of the modern English 
pulpit. Besides, they suggest the different ways in which biblical exposition may 
be pursued, the discourses being nearly all expository. They contain, too, many 
effective presentations of important truth, notwithstanding occasional errors, as, 
for example, when Dean Vaughan tells us (p. 90.) that the Bible and the God of the 
Bible are in no sense responsible for the “Song of Deborah,” which may “have 
been nothing more than the pasan of a patriot over the deed which had set her 
country free,” or when Archdeacon Farrar speaks (p. 1 10) of David’s dying com- 
mand concerning Joab as “vindictive,” of his direction about Shimei “ as shock- 
ingly mean,” and of his obedience to the divine will in sacrificing seven of Saul’s 
sons as a “ horrid story, ” or when Professor Davidson explains Elijah’s question, 
“ Why halt ye between two opinions ?” as meaning that while some of the people 
were true worshippers and others strict idolaters, the great body were neither the 
one nor the other, whereas the true sense is that the whole nation was not indif- 
ferent or lukewarm, but fickle, now altogether for one, and again altogether lor 
the other, and what they were summoned to do was no longer to vacillate, but, 
having taken a side, to adhere to it with decision and firmness. Indifference and 
vacillation are not the same thing. — — Die Rede des Herrn auf dem Berge. Ein 
Beitrag zur Losung Hirer Probleme. Von F. L. Steinmeyer. Berlin : Wie- 
gandt und Grieben. (From Westermann & Co.) This volume is not a commen- 
tary or detailed exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, but an attempt to grasp 
its main design and leading features. It is written with care, and in an excellent 
spirit, and abounds with citations from other Scriptures in which the Saviour’s 



exact words, or their sense, are given. There are those who consider the cele- 
brated sermon a fortuitous collection of sayings, put together without reference 
to any preconceived purpose. Professor Steinmeyer goes to the other extreme 
and assigns to it an exact scientific or logical form so that it is shown to have one 
single aim from beginning to end. He makes out a somewhat plausible case, but 
seems to be a victim of his own ingenuity. His love of systematizing appears in 
the very form of his work. It consists of an introduction which has three sec- 
tions, and what follows is distributed into three parts, each of which again has 
three sections. This surely is very unlike the easy, natural flow of the discourse. 
The author begins by assuming Matthew’s report as the original and correct 
lorm of the sermon ; he makes its keynote to be what the author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (vi. i) calls “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” ( logos tes 
arches)', and he finds its plan in the relation of the several parts to what Bengel 
calls the centrum totius homilies, the utterance toward the close of the sixth 
chapter, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,” in which 
verse the professor gives some good reasons for adhering to the received text. 
The theme then being the righteousness which God requires, the discourse 
sets forth, I. The longing after this righteousness. 2. The striving after it, and 
3. The attainment of it. Under the first head Dr. Steinmeyer discusses first the 
beatitudes, the chief of which is that concerning those who hunger and thirst 
after righteousness, then the law as spiritually expounded by our Lord, and 
finally, the aim, which is to show the need of righteousness. Under the second 
head it is shown how men should strive in this direction, first, in reference to the 
offering in secret, i. e., such services as are rendered only with an eye to God’s 
approval, then to the heart and the treasure, i. e., finding one’s delight in God 
Himself, and finally to the reward, which is not something in the future, but 
righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost here and now. Under the third 
head, we are pointed first to the warning contained in the first six verses of 
chap. vii. , then to the direction, which consists in encouragements to prayer 
and to efforts to enter in by the narrow gate ; and finally to the purpose, 
for they who have entered by the gate must take heed lest they be misled by 
false teachers or substitute profession for performance. This brief outline 
compressed to the utmost suggests the characteristic features of the author’s 
plan. It strikes us as rather forced. It abounds with acute criticisms and 
profound remarks, and yet has an air of unreality as attempting to adjust to 
an artificial scheme what is really the most simple and artless statement of 
truth to be found in the New Testament. It is like compelling a bed of Pales- 
tine’s wild flowers, exquisite in natural beauty, into a garden marked off into 
small plots by paths and hedges drawn with geometrical accuracy. It is far 
better to consider this wonderful discourse neither as a series of wise utterances 
having no more connection than the separate pearls on a string, nor as a regu- 
larly concatenated address the parts of which are so adjusted to each other that 
any dislocation would mar the effect, but as a general statement of our Lord’s 
relation to the old dispensation and of the underlying principles of the new king- 
dom he was introducing, the whole being intended to instruct his hearers, to 
guard them against the errors to which they were exposed, and to prepare the way 
for the fuller development to be subsequently made. This avoids the necessity 
of purely arbitrary methods of manufacturing a connection, such as that which 
is adopted by Steinmeyer in regard to the golden rule (vii. 12) which he repre- 
sents as a thought of secondary importance, a mere corollary to the verse im- 
mediately preceding, intended to explain the father's love there spoken of. But 
it is passing strange to have such an implication enjoined so distinctly and di- 
rectly as this one. Professor Steinmeyer has given us an excellent work, but he 
has not solved the problem he proposed to himself. — - — Sermons by T. DcWitt 
Talmage. Phonographically Reported and Revised. First Series. (New York: 



Funk & Wagnalls.) This volume fulfils the promise of the preface in that they 
are out of the old ruts. They are after no prescribed pattern and do not 
abound in instructiveness. Yet they have peculiar merit as bold, clear, inci- 
sive statements of religious truth. They are not treatises, but homilies, and have 
all the rapidity and fire one expects from the living voice. As such they are 
worthy of print not only for the sake of the general reader but as illustrations 
of the way in which pulpit discourse may be made interesting and impressive. 
The attention is kept continually alert, and often a vivid illustration drives the 
word home on the conscience. But it is odd to find Dr. Talmage quoting the 
so-called letter of Publius Lentulus about the Saviour as if it were authentic, 
and still more, to see mention made of the Lord’s death-warrant as having been 

found in Italy ! Sermons. Forty-eight discourses by the Rev. C. F. Deems, 

D.D. (Ibid). This is a very different volume from the preceding. Its contents 
were preached to an assembly designed to “ bring the order of Episcopalians, 
the stability of Presbyterians, the tenacity of Baptists, the conservatism of the 
Reformed Dutch and the free fervor of Methodists into one Church” (p. 66). So 
far as the sermons are concerned with practical topics they are sound and earnest 
and forcible. When the preacher enters the domain of theology, his step be- 
comes wavering. The text God is Love is treated very unsatisfactorily. And in 
the sermon entitled “Reconciliation” there is a caricature called “Pagan 
Christianity,” a fiction of the preacher’s brain, and yet he told his audience that 
it .was held by many of their acquaintances. It is simply that misrepresentation 
of the doctrines of grace which one is used to hear from Socinian propagandists, 
but which we would hardly expect to find set forth by the genial and accom- 
plished pastor of the Church of the Strangers. T. W. Chambers. 


The Religious Aspect of Philosophy. A Critique of the Bases of Conduct 
and of Faith. ByJosiAH Royce, Ph.D., Instructor in Philosophy in Harvard 
College. Boston : Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1885. Pp. 484. 

Judging this book by the standard of revealed religion, it is necessary to speak 
of it in terms of decided disapprobation. The author represents a type of Hegel- 
ianism which is altogether out ol sympathy with historic Christianity. We say 
this advisedly and well knowing that an author is not to be blamed because he 
does not find in the religious aspect of philosophy a full-blown dogmatic faith. 
Our objection to Dr. Royce’s philosophy is not bound in its shortcomings so much 
as in the fact that it is in the nature of the case inimical to revealed religion. 

It is only lair, however, that we should also judge this book from the author’s 
point of view, and we must do Dr. Royce the justice to say that he appears to be 
an earnest man seeking light in regard to very pressing and very profound relig- 
ious problems. In short, he is a philosopher in quest of religion. Very correctly 
he declares that religion must contain the three elements of creed, code and 
cult ; and in his opinion the most important of these, or, rather, the one that is 
first to be sought, is a code. Before inquiring whether there be a God, or pro- 
pounding any theory of the universe, the writer begins to seek for a moral ideal. 
Here, we think, he is mistaken, and that the attempt to defer all metaphysical 
discussion until the moral ideal is discovered accounts for some of the difficulties 
with which he finds this fundamental ethical question to be invested. This, 
however, is the author’s method, and accordingly the volume under notice is 
divided into two parts, the first being “ The Search for a Moral Ideal” and the 
second “ The Search for a Religious Truth.” 



The author takes for granted that an obligatory ideal is demanded. With 
those moralists who try to explain the genesis of the idea of obligation by reduc- 
ing it to lower terms, Dr. Royce apparently has no sympathy ; and to the extent 
at least of the categorical imperative he stands on intuitional ground. There is, 
then, an ideal which we ought to realize. What is it ? Here we encounter the 
difficulty which, according to our author, burdens intuitional morality. That it 
is a difficulty need not be denied, and Dr. Royce has not made it more apparent 
than Mr. Arthur Balfour had done already. Dr. Royce condemns all the formu- 
las that have ever been proposed, as failing to satisiy the demand of an idealistic 
morality. The moral ideal, like the notion of obligation, must, in Dr. Royce’s 
view, be given a priori, or, at least, must be demonstrably inferable from a 
priori premises. The trouble with the ideals which we find in the great ethical 
systems is that they all rest upon the foundation of some physical fact, or are 
supported by some metaphysical dogma which itself stands in need of proof, or, 
what is very commonly true, have no other support than the caprice of those who 
happen to believe them. Thus ideal justice, as taught by Plato, “is founded on 
a bare physical fact — namely, on the constitution of the soul which might, for 
all we can see, have been different.” Christian morality teaches us to return the 
Father’s love, but that presupposes the idea of God’s Fatherhood, an idea, says 
our author, “ that our philosophy finds most difficulty nowadays in establish- 
ing.” If, again, we ask conscience to furnish us a moral ideal, we are no better 
off, ior “ one of the first questions of the moralist must be why conscience in any 
given case is right. Or, to put the case otherwise, why, if the devil’s conscience 
approves the devil’s acts, as it well may do, the devil’s conscience is nevertheless 
in the wrong.” 

We do not feel that there is any such difficulty as Dr. Royce supposes in 
respect to the possibility of finding a moral ideal, though it must be conceded 
that the chapters on the “Warfare of the Moral Ideals” and on ” Altruism and 
Egoism” contain some very acute criticisms, the author’s strictures on the Ethics 
of Evolution being particularly worthy of attention. Dr. Royce, however, is per- 
suaded that we must go on to ethical scepticism and even to pessimism, or else 
find some self-supporting moral ideal. Failing to find this ideal, philosophy must 
confess itself a failure. We have now, perhaps, some idea of the task which Dr. 
Royce assigns himself in the first part of this work. It is nothing less than that 
of saving the world from hopeless moral scepticism by doing what even Jesus 
did not do, and what all the philosophies of the world have signally failed to do. 
Dr. Royce is very modest and lays no claim to special consideration on account 
of the contribution that he makes to the world’s faith. Yet he believes that he 
has found the long-wished-for moral ideal that is to save us from ethical despair. 
If matters were as bad as our author thinks they are, so far as the foundations 
of ethical science are concerned, and if our author had really done what he 
thinks he has done, we should say without hesitation that he has performed the 
greatest service for religious thought that was ever rendered by an uninspired 
man. But, as has been already implied, the author has, in our view, given a 
somewhat exaggerated account of the world’s peril. It is well for us, perhaps, 
that we do not realize the dangers of moral scepticism and pessimism of which 
our author speaks, since there is nothing in Dr. Royce’s pages which, so far as 
we are able to see, would give us the slightest relief. 

Dr. Royce would have us believe that in the act of doubting in regard to the 
moral ideal we find deliverance from doubt — a statement which is paradoxical 
enough to be very profound. “This scepticism,” he says, “expresses an in- 
difference that we feel when we contemplate two opposing aims in such a way 
as momentarily to share them both.” In the act of doubting we realize that 
there are conflicting wills in the world ; more than that, we for the time being 
identify ourselves with these conflicting wills. These conflicting wills are in us, 



and our doubt is really our endeavor to harmonize them. And so “ above all 
our scepticism is the supreme end that makes that scepticism possible.” This 
supreme end is the harmony of conflicting wills. It, therefore, it be asked, What 
is the moral ideal ? the answer will be, The realization of “ the Universal Will.” 
It will be very difficult, perhaps, for one, even after he has read this work through 
several times, to know exactly what the author means by the Universal Will, 
just as it is difficult to know exactly what he afterward means by the Universal 
Thought. What success may attend the labors of those who, with ample time 
at their disposal, shall desire to fathom the depths of the author’s meaning, we 
cannot say. But as the criticisms that we desire to make would be equally just, 
whatever the author may intend, we have no reluctance about confessing that 
there are some things in this book which we do not understand. It is, however, 
very plain to us that the criticisms ur£ed by Dr. Royce as objections against all 
other moral ideals apply with equal force to his own. Let us consider this. He 
says that in the act of doubting respecting the possibility of any moral ideal we 
are really trying to harmonize conflicting wills. This explanation of doubt 
strikes us as very fanciful and far-letched. But suppose that it be correct. We 
are trying, the author says, to harmonize conflicting wills. And he concludes 
that this, then, is the moral ideal. Seek the harmony of all wills in one will. 
We are doing this, therefore we ought to do this. It seems to us that Dr. Royce 
is very much like some of the writers whom he has condemned, and that he, too, 
“ has founded the lofty Ought on the paltry Is." There may be more than one 
way of harmonizing conflicting wills. There may be a compromise all round, 
or one will may dominate and the rest may succumb. Dr. Royce does not tell 
us how the universal will is to be realized, though it would have been interesting 
to see a fuller exposition of his belief on this point. To carry out the first 
method it would be necessary, first of all, to secure a suspension of the law of the 
excluded middle, which, in the present state of thought, would be very difficult. 
The reconciliation of contradictions is not known anywhere in the universe, we 
imagine, outside of the Hegelian dialectic. If, however, Dr. Royce means that 
men should all act as though there were but one will, this may turn out to be 
only the commonplace proposition that truth is one, and that if all men were 
right they would have substantially one will. This amounts to saying there is an 
obligatory ideal that we ought to realize ; and, instead of having an answer to 
our question, it only confronts us once more with the inquiry, What is the 
moral ideal ? 

Suppose, moreover, that all conflict of will were to disappear. Suppose that 
“ all the world of individuals” were to “ act as one being, having a single uni- 
versal will how should I know that this was the right will ? Common consent 
is not a proof of rightness. Might we not ask of this universal will what Dr. 
Royce asked about the devil ? and whether acts done under the direction of the 
universal will might not nevertheless be wrong ? We repeat that it is not very 
clear what the author means by the Universal Will. Is it an abstraction serving 
to denote the ideal harmony of individuals in a moral world ? If so, we need not 
add to what has been just affirmed. Is the universal will a being that, as Theists 
would say, is objective to and distinct from individual finite wills, or, as some 
speculative philosophers would say, that is only manifesting itself in the multi- 
tude of finite wills ? It matters not, so far as the purpose of this criticism is con- 
cerned, which of these views is entertained by our author, for in either case it is 
clear that he has succeeded in finding a moral ideal only by postulating a meta- 
physical principle as its support. In doing this, however, he is but following the 
example of those whom only a while ago he condemned for doing the same thing. 

Lack of space prevents us from following our author in his search for a relig- 
ious truth. There is much that is valuable in this part of the work. The chapter 
on the “ Possibility of Error” is the most subtle in the volume, and is the key to 



the author’s metaphysic. Dr. Royce makes little or no use of the idea of causa- 
tion in constructing his theory of the universe, and builds exclusively on that of 
thought. His system is therefore, as may be expected, one-sided and partial. 
We believe with him, though not in the way, perhaps, that he believes, that the 
possibility of any relative thought and knowledge implies absolute thought and 
knowledge. We believe, in other words, that a great truth underlies the old 
argument for the divine existence as taught by Augustine and Boethius. Dr. 
Royce has considered the problem of knowing and being with great acuteness, 
and with a little change of phraseology his arguments will go very far to support 
the Theism of popular theology that he discards. That there should be an Infi- 
nite Thinker is a belief that appears rational in the light of every consideration. 
But a Universal Thought that is not the thought of any thinker is a meaningless 
juxtaposition of words, and nothing more! The outcome of Dr. Royce's search 
for a religious truth is expressed in the following terms : “As my thought at any 
time and however engaged combines several fragmentary thoughts into the unity 
of one conscious moment, so, we affirm, does the Universal Thought combine 
the thoughts of all of us into an absolute unity of thought, together with all the 
objects and all the thoughts about those objects that are, or have been, or will 
be, or can be, in the universe. This Universal Thought is what we have ven- 
tured, for the sake of convenience, to call God. It is not the God ” — we should 
hope not — “ of very much of the traditional theology.’’ F. L. Patton. 

Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his Relation to the World. By 

Hermann Lotze. Translated from the German by Elizabeth Hamilton and 

E. E. Constance Jones. 2 vols., pp. 714, 729. New York : Scribner & Wel- 

ford, 1885. 

The prominent place that is just now given to Lotze’s philosophy is probably 
due in some degree to the fact that it combines elements that are not often found 
in the same system and are generally regarded as antagonistic. He stands, 
with Wundt, Helmholtz, and Fechner, among the leading advocates of physio- 
logical psychology, though not possessing the eminence of these men in this de- 
partment ; he is, however, a metaphysician of the most dogmatic kind, and 
is a daring believer in ontology. He is withal a Theist, though denying the 
dualism of mind and matter, as that dualism is commonly expressed by the naive 
understanding of ordinary men. He published his “ Medical Psychology’’ in 
1852, his “ Logic’’ having previously appeared in 1843. The work under notice 
appeared i 856-’64. Later than this is his “ Metaphysics,” a translation ol which 
has recently appeared under the auspices of the Clarendon Press. 

His theory regarding the perception of Space is, in the opinion of Ribot, his 
particular contribution to psychology, and is so recognized by Wundt and 
Helmholtz. “ Lotze,” says Ribot (La Psychologie Allemand Contemporaine, 
p. 75), “ must be regarded as one of the principal representatives of the doctrine 
called in Germany Ideal Realismus , a term which is applied to the schools that 
hold a position midway between realism and idealism.” As to the relation 
between thoughts and things, Lotze distrusts the idealistic solution, but fears 
even more materialism and the mechanical explanation of the universe. Senti- 
ment, aesthetic taste, and religious convictions play an important part in his 
metaphysic, and among other hypotheses he accords an indisputable place to 
that which best satisfies our moral needs : the result of this being, as Ribot goes 
on to say, a doctrine somewhat vague in outline, difficult to reduce to system, 
though perhaps clear enough as to general impression. 

The “ Microcosmus” is a popular work, and on that account better fitted for 
presenting the results of I.otze's thinking to the general reader than anything 
that has come from his pen. The translation of it into English is an invaluable 
contribution to the philosophic literature of our language, and the study of it 



we venture to say, will make an epoch in the education of any one who has not 
otherwise become familiar with the mode of thinking which Lotze exhibits. The 
scope of the work is sufficiently indicated by its title. Everything' that bears 
upon man and his interests, or upon his relation to the macrocosm, is legiti- 
mately within the purview of an author who sets out to give an account of the 
microcosm. To say that Lotze has done his work well is to say that he has 
taken a wide and comprehensive view of the great problems of knowledge. We 
may expect, therefore, to find a discussion of what knowledge is and how it be- 
comes possible, of man and the somatic and psychical elements which constitute 
him, of the phenomenal world objective to him in its organic and inorganic forms, 
of the problems touching the genesis of the cosmos, the origin of life and the 
constitution of matter. We shall expect also some account of the relations that 
men sustain to one another, the philosophy of the social institutions, and the mean- 
ing of history. Man’s interest in philosophy, art, morals, and religion, will call 
for discussions of these and kindred topics. And,- finally, man’s relation to God 
will make it necessary for the author to deal with the question of God’s existence 
and the problem of the Divine Personality. These, in fact, are the topics em- 
braced in the two well-printed and bulky volumes that lie before us. It would 
be obviously impossible, within the space at our disposal, to undertake the re- 
view of such a work, or do more than call attention to a few points that seem 
worthy of special notice. 

The standpoint of this treatise is the spiritual nature of man. Truth is in order 
to goodness : and Lotze condemns in strong terms the deification of truth that is 
often embodied in hackneyed remarks about truth for truth’s sake. The “ Micro- 
cosmus’ ’ has an apologetic as well as a didactic purpose in view. It is the author’s 
wish to show that the doctrine of mechanism cannot rob us of God and the soul. 
His book is intended to mediate between extreme positions by “ showing how ab- 
solutely universal is the extent, and at the same time how completely subordinate 
the significance of the mission that mechanism has to fulfil in the structure of the 
world.” The concessions which he makes to mechanism and his views as to the 
evolution of history suggest Hegel to our minds, and it is evident that Hegel is 
constantly in Lotze’s mind, but only that he may emphasize his opposition to 
Hegelianism ; as where he tells us that “ if we would not stray into vagueness 
and'choose as our basis of explanation something of whose nature and essence 
we cannot form the remotest idea, we must be fain to confess that this kind of 
purposive working belongs exclusively to a Soul and not to an Idea, and we must 
convert the shifting conception of the Idea into this more distinct notion.” 

It is not necessary to agree with Lotze to be stimulated by and derive profit 
from his writings. We may feel that when he speaks about the seat of the soul 
and the relation of soul and body he has not thrown much light upon that very- 
dark subject, and, in spite of his denial that matter is extended, and his able ad- 
vocacy of what is known as the dynamic theory of matter, the old-fashioned dual- 
ism will seem to a great many of his readers as, afler all, the most sensible phi- 
losophy. And in his luminous chapter on conscience and morality, while we are 
glad to see that he gives intuitional dignity to the idea of Obligation, we have a 
feeling of disappointment when he tells us that for the content or the filling-up 
of that idea we have to fall back upon experience. Nevertheless — and in these 
days this is a great deal to say- — Lotze is loyal to the separate personality of the 
soul, and to the abiding consciousness or duty. We wish it were in our power 
to say as much of the author’s relation to revealed religion : the chapter on the 
religious life is too full of disparaging references to Christian theology, and even 
to fundamental doctrines, for us to suppose that Lotze had any intellectual sym- 
pathy with such cardinal doctrines as the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the Trin- 
ity, and the Divinity of Christ. In regard to the existence of God, however, 
Lotze’s trumpet gives no uncertain sound. He believes in God and in a personal 



God. God, in his mind, is not another word for the universe or “the uncon- 
scious.” He is not a stream of tendency, or a power not ourselves. He is not 
superpersonal, personality being a mark of limitation. He is a personal Spirit ; 
and Lotze concludes his discussion of the question by saying : “ Perfect person- 
ality is in God only, to all finite minds there is allotted but a pale copy thereof ; 
the finiteness of the finite is not a producing condition of this personality, but a 
limit and a hindrance of its development.” F. L. Patton. 

We make brief mention of the following books : 

La Philosophie Allemand Contemporaine. Par Th. Ribot. 2 e edition. 
(Paris : 1885.) A second and greatly improved edition of this very valuable 
book has just appeared. It is particularly devoted to the exhibition of those Ger- 
man philosophers of the present time who have made contributions to the physio- 
logical side of psychology. Wundt, Herbart, Lotze, and Fechner occupy a promi- 
nent place in the volume. An English translation of this work is greatly needed, 
and we are in a position to say that a presentation of it in English dress may be 

looked for very shortly. Die Italienische Philosophie cics neiinzehnten Jahr- 

hunderts. Von Dr. Karl Werner. Dritter Band. Der Kritische Versinkung und 
Speculative Unibildung des Ontologismus. (Wien: 1885.) In this volume Dr. 
Werner carries his work down to our own time. The characteristics of the phi- 
losophy of the immediate present will be the subject of the next volume. A fifth 
is promised dealing with special philosophical disciplines, and a sixth on ecclesi- 
astical philosophy will complete the work. History of the Arguments for 

the Existence of God. By Aaron Hahn, Rabbi of the Tifereth Israel Congrega- 
tion, Cleveland, O. (Cincinnati : 1885. Pp. 205.) This is an account of the 
leading forms of argument for the divine existence, stated in the words of the 
several authors, and with but little criticism. It does not supply the need of 
a really first-rale historico-critical treatise on this subject. F. L. Patton. 


Tiryns. The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns. The results of the 
latest excavations. By Dr. Henry Schliemann, with a Preface by Professor 
F. Adler, and contributions by Dr. William Dorpfeld, with 188 woodcuts, 24 
plates in chromo-lithography, 1 map, and 4 plans. New York : Charles 
Scribner’s Sons. 

This a work of great value for Greek archaeology, and for the connections be- 
tween Phoenicia and Greece in the most ancient times. The excavations herein 
described by Dr. Schliemann and the summary estimation of them by Dr. Dbrp- 
feld and Professor Adler are in some respects more important than anything 
accomplished in the previous works upon Troy and Mycenae. We are introduced 
into an ancient Greek palace, and are enabled to pass from apartment to apart- 
ment. We see the methods of defence in a citadel of unusual strength. The 
internal decorations of the palace, with all their wealth of color, are revealed to 
us. We thus have much needed help for understanding the ancient life of 
Greece, and the Homeric poems are rendered more real to us. The student of 
the Bible is interested in the work of the Phoenicians, those great builders of 
ancient times, who were called upon to take part in the erection of the temple and 
palace of Jerusalem, as well as in the ancient palaces and citadels of Greece. 
Those huge blocks of stone in position in the walls are the marvel of our times. 
We are not surprised that they were regarded as the work of the mythical 



Dr. Schliemann has earned the thanks of all students of antiquity. His years 
of labor in the exploration of the buried cities of ancient Greece have been 
successful to a marked degree. His discoveries have been of vast service to 
students, and have stimulated others to engage in the same kind of work. One 
cannot help wishing that several other such zealous explorers of ruins might be 
raised up. The ruined cities of Syria, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and other 
ancient countries need to be thoroughly explored. Results of even greater im- 
portance may be expected for the illustration of the most ancient history of our 
religion and our race. There are men of princely birth and princely fortunes 
who take delight in hunting the beasts of the forest, and incur great expense in 
the pleasures of the chase. If they only knew the vastly greater pleasure that is 
to be gained in the search for the buried literary and archaeological treasures, 
some of them would consecrate their lives and fortunes to this nobler game. A 
few such princely explorers as Dr. Schliemann would remove the darkness which 
now envelops so great a part of Oriental history, and deliver us from that strife 
of traditions and speculation which is due to insufficient knowledge of the real 
facts of the case. The spade is the key to the mysteries of the ancient world. 

The book is a model in paper, print, illustration and mechanical execution. It 
is defective in its literary construction. The supplementary part, giving the 
result of the excavations of the year 1885 by Dr. Dorpfeld, is not only a supple- 
ment, but it corrects several of the theories advanced in the body of the work. 
We are thankful for the corrections which were rendered necessary by the fresh 
discoveries, but we cannot refrain from the criticism that it would have been 
better if Dr. Schliemann had delayed the printing of his book until the explora- 
tions had been completed, and the entire results presented in a systematic whole. 
The publishers deserve great praise for their share in the production of the 
book. It is difficult to see how they can afford to give such a magnificent book 
for the small price of $10. C. A. Briggs. 

Harrison’s and Baskervill’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Edited from 
Groschoft’s Grein. A. S. Barnes & Co. 

One of the most urgent needs in the department of First English Philology has 
been a scholarly and yet practical lexicon of the language. Though German 
students have not been without such valuable aids, English and American 
scholars have been obliged to content themselves with Dr. Bosworth’s Diction- 
ary, sustaining, as it does, the same relation to actual needs that Dr. Johnson’s 
English Dictionary now sustains to the latest editions of Webster or Worcester. 
Even the Bosworth-Toller Lexicon, now about half completed, does not alto- 
gether meet the need, to say nothing of its expense and size. It will have its 
place as a book of reference, but can scarcely ever come to popular acceptance 
and use. To meet this practical necessity special glossaries have already been 
prepared by the respective editors of the Library of Anglo-Saxon Poetry in their 
respective editions of Beowulf, Andreas and Caedmon. The lexicon before us, 
however, covers the entire province of First English Poetry. It will thus make 
the study of our oldest forms attractive and useful. Moreover, as the editors 
indicate, it has been the purpose to give to the work a distinctively etymological 
value ; special attention has thus been given to cognate words from the Gothic, 
Old High German, Icelandic and Modern German. To this feature has also been 
added an alphabetical list of all the irregular verbs of our oldest poetry, with a 
short but sufficiently complete outline of grammar. In fine, the American editors 
have aimed to do for their educated countrymen what Dr. Grosschoff has aimed 
to do for the Germans — to simplify and utilize Grein’s larger work. With this 
lexicon before us, it may now be safely stated that all the essential facilities for 
the scholarly study of our oldest English are within the reach of any student 



desirous of using them. This is a result for which American students of Caed- 
mon and his successors have long waited, and we urge upon every American 
college the increasing importance of a fundamental knowledge of First English 
on the part of every American graduate. 

We submit with emphasis that the liberal culture of any English student is 
significantly incomplete in the absence of such a knowledge of the original 
forms, uses and inner spirit of his vernacular. Toward such an opinion, we 
are happy to add, modern educational criticism is manifestly tending. 

T. W. Hunt. 

Congressional Government : A Study in American Politics. By Woodrow 
Wilson, Fellow in History, Johns Hopkins University. Boston : Houghton, 
Mifflin & Company. 1885. 

Mr. Wilson has thrown his work into six sections — an introduction and a con- 
clusion, two sections on the House of Representatives, and one each on the 
Senate and Executive. Of these the portion relating to the House of Represent- 
atives is altogether the most new and striking. 

The foundation on which he attempts to build — a foundation entirely irrelevant 
to his work — is the notion that, while the names and forms of the Constitution 
survive with little change, its checks and balances have disappeared. “ The 
actual form of our present Government is simply a scheme of Congressional 
supremacy.” This is a popular and taking notion, but where is the evidence for 
it ? It is true that the Constitution was intended only as a skeleton, to be pro- 
vided with flesh, blood and muscle by legislation, and that growth is legitimate. 
But, so far from its being true that its system has been perverted into a Congres- 
sional despotism, ten minutes would be enough to show that the most evident 
result as yet has been to demonstrate the high power of the constitutional 
scheme to correct its errors in practical working. It has successfully undergone 
tests as to the judiciary and Executive, and Mr. Wilson’s facts only show that 
the result will be the same in the case of Congress. 

The last volume of Jefferson’s “ Correspondence” anticipates Mr. Wilson’s 
jeremiad by more than sixty years, but the causa teterrima was then the federal 
judiciary under the lead of John Marshall. It had overacted its part as a check 
and balance ; it had amplified its jurisdiction mightily ; and the natural result, 
within ten years after Jefferson’s death, was to reverse the process. The wheels 
ol its machinery became so clogged by increase of business that the judges were as 
anxious to disclaim as they had once been to assume jurisdiction. The decisions 
in the Civil Rights and other late cases of the kind are only new examples of this 
process of self-correction in the case of the federal courts. Something was heard 
of “ executive despotism” under Washington, more under Jackson, most of all 
under Lincoln ; but Johnson’s reconstruction struggle showed that, barring dan- 
gerously unsuccessful warfare, Executive despotism is no serious peril to our 
system. Our Presidency is an office of great trusts, great use, and very little 
self-contained power. 

There remains, according to Mr. Wilson, the danger from the Legislative. 
The reconstruction struggle certainly developed the powers of Congress into a 
monstrosity; this was its opportunity to amplify its jurisdiction, and it, in its 
turn, has become as unwieldy and helpless as an overgrown toad in its hole. 
Let it claim universal powers ; the claim will cure itself. Mr. Wilson cannot 
name, during the fifteen years last past, a connected series of even three Acts 
, designed to secure a vantage point of power ; the claims of Congress make it 
incompetent to accomplish anything so dangerous. It seldom fires, and then 
only at random around a limitless horizon. The mountain groans every session, 
and if the labor results in ever so ridiculous a mouse of an Act, over and above 
the regular appropriation bills, every one feels that Congress has been ‘ ' unusually 



active.” Even when it wills with concentration, it is usually in a direction in 
which it dares not advance. Fancy — we may see it in fact next winter — the 
President and the representative newspapers on one side and Mr. Wilson’s 
‘‘Congressional despotism” on the other; does any one, who recalls the igno- 
minious surrender of this same body, in its struggle of 1879 with President 
Hayes, doubt the result ? The fact is that Congress, if we may use the phrase, 
has “ bitten off more than it can chew,” and, further, that it dares not even bite 
at much for which it instinctively hungers. 

Outside of his unsuccessful effort to provide this irrelevant basis, Mr. Wilson’s 
work is excellent, and, for a first book, remarkable. He describes well, drawing 
freely from Judge Hoar, the successive steps by which a new Representative 
discovers that he is an absolute cipher ; that he is hedged in by an invisible and 
almost incomprehensible system of rules ; that he may not speak, or question 
the action of the House or its Speaker, or begin discussion, or attempt any of 
the work for which he was elected, further than to introduce bills on Mondays ; 
and that debate has been abandoned in practice to the committees, whose chair- 
men are the real leaders of the House. The little debate that is had takes place 
in the committee rooms, is r.ot published, and is at the sufferance of the commit- 
tee or its chairman. The Plouse very seldom debates the reports ; it adopts them, 
if the majority hold together, and, if the minority resist, it is by dilatory motions, 
all-night sessions, and a general ‘‘ scene,’’ rather than by debate. If the 
author fails to show the despotism of Congress over the country, he is successful 
in showing the willing submission of the House to the despotism of its Commit- 
tees. He accepts the idea that the growth of public business has made the Com- 
mittee system a necessity. It seems to us that the adoption of a single joint rule, 
that no private or special business shall be taken up until all public and general 
business has been passed upon, would put an end to the Committee system and 
the present generation of ‘‘leaders” at a blow. The Committee system is an 
attempt to enable Congress to do what it never can do, and has no Constitutional 
right to meddle with. 

Taken as a whole, the book is to be cordially commended. There is probably 
no other from which the reader can obtain so complete, instructive and interest- 
ing an account of the government under which he lives. 

Alexander Johnston. 

The Silent South. Together with the Freedman’s Case in Equity, and the 
Convict Lease System. By George W. Cable. New York: Charles Scrib- 

ner’s Sons. 1885. 

Were one presenting his convictions respecting a general truth, or the relations 
of a class of people on the broad plane of humanity, he would be expected only 
to state these convictions clearly with no special reference to any practical ques- 
tions involved. He might properly consult the views, and even the prejudices, 
of those for whom he writes. He might seek popularity among those to whom 
his sentiments are directed. But, when one is discussing a truth, or a series of 
truths, having definite bearing on a portion of our nation, and the relations ol a 
class of people forming an element in our Government, the facts come to be of 
the highest significance, and the question whether his suggestions are accept- 
able to those most interested or not, is comparatively unimportant. 

Our personal wishes, and our class or party considerations, are then to be out 
of view, and the popularity here or there of what we utter should have small 
weight in determining what we will say. It makes little difference what the 
peculiarities, or history, or color of this present factor of the Government may 
be ; or what, or how general, the estimate of them, by way of depreciation may 
have been. That they are now on a par with others in the organic structure of 
the nation, imposes upon them rights and obligations which self-interest, if not 



self-preservation, urges us very carefully to study, and without prejudice very 
faithfully to guard. It appears to have been Mr. Cable’s purpose thus to 
write concerning the Freedmen of the South, and their treatment from those 
with whom they are now related as American citizens. In the article, especially, 
entitled “ The Freedman’s Case in Equity,” he distinctly, and with much 
force, declares that the old habit of assuming that the Negroes are an inferior 
race, and therefore must be placed on a lower level, and everywhere made to 
feel their degradation, should be abandoned. He argues that the cherishing of 
this assumption is both wrong and dangerous; that before long the denial of 
civil rights will bring remediless evil upon the social distinctions which it is 
hoped to guard ; that there is no danger that the permission of these rights will 
break down lines in social life, when black men are so treated by the law any- 
more than when white men of different grades have such guarantees ; and that 
every argument presses all to the conclusion that these people should be treated, 
not as freedmen with certain accepted badges of inferiority, but as free men 
with all rights secured, and no bars to keep them apart from their fellows 
save those with which society always protects itself and makes itself comfort- 
able, whatever inay be the color of its elements. He demonstrates that there is 
no well-grounded fear of amalgamation, and that natural selection will rule 
here as everywhere. He shows that the prevalence of this feeling, which he, 
as a Southerner, would remove, has been of incalculable damage at the South, 
giving proof of his assertions, which he has had favorable opportunity to 
gather. In short, the book, because of its author, and the pertinence and abil- 
ity of the discussion, just at this time when its theme has so much practical sig- 
nificance, may be accepted as a valuable contribution to the political and general 
literature of the country. 

That it should not be liked by those whose prejudices and conduct it seeks to 
correct, was to be expected, but it may be none the less valuable on that ac- 
count. Some of its conclusions may be doubted when all their practical bear- 
ing is perceived. There may be opportunity to question whether, in view of the 
other classes of residents in the Southern States ,the statistics given respecting 
the prisons in these States are so largely due to the unjust discrimination 
against the colored people as is the inference from the author’s statements. 
But the main purpose of the book is worthy of full and honest examination from 
men in the South and in the North, and its logic, both of fact and argument, 
cannot be safely disregarded. James Eells. 

The Cyclades ; or, Life Among the Insular Greeks. By J. Theodore Bent, 
B.A. Oxon. 121110, pp. 501. London, 1885. 

While there are many readable and valuable books descriptive of travel in the 
continental part of Greece, w-e know of no accessible source of information 
respecting the manners and customs of the inhabitants of the islands of the 
zEgean Sea dependent upon the crown of King George. Yet these constitute, in 
some respects, the most interesting portion of his dominions. Perhaps the 
antiquities to be seen are not proportionately more numerous than those of the 
mainland ; but, on the whole, the islanders have been less affected by the 
inroads of foreigners, and afford a better subject of study for those who would 
illustrate ancient customs, and especially ancient superstitions, by their modern 
counterparts or reproductions. This has been the aim of Mr. Bent, and, as he 
has persistently- pursued it, he has made a much more important contribution to 
knowledge than had he suffered himself to be led aside into the seductive field of 
antiquarian disquisition. He does not, indeed, neglect to describe briefly what- 
ever architectural remains he met, and he gives a few pages to some slight but 
not uninteresting excavations which he himself made (on the island of Anti- 



paros) ; but the chief attraction of his book does not centre in these. The relig- 
ious and, if we may say so, the semi-religious life of the people occupies the eye 
throughout. Rude, uncultivated, apparently living in an age quite different 
from that of the Western Europe of to-day, with a priesthood little raised above 
the laity in civilization and enlightenment, the population of the Cyclades pre- 
sents the appearance of a people that has been left behind, or forgotten, in the 
rapid march of improvement. With the exception of the descendants of the 
Franks that conquered Greece at the time of the fourth Crusade, and the Vene- 
tians of later days, they are all adherents of the Greek Church. In their religious 
observances they are strict and devout, admitting, like their fellow-religionists 
elsewhere, none of those compromises, none of those purchases of indulgence 
made by means of money, that turn many of the fasts of the Latin Church into 
little better than farces. The Greek of the Cyclades abstains from meat from the 
beginning to the end of Lent. He believes implicitly in baptismal regeneration. 
The mother, on the island of Andros, gives no name to her baby before it is 
christened, but rather contemptuously designates it as “Dragon” or “Iron” 
(Sideros) ; on other islands the unfortunate little being is called “ Paganos” or 
“ Pagan.” The amount of heathenism embalmed in the form of Christianity 
prevalent in the Cyclades almost surpasses belief. The old gods have passed 
into Christian saints, with attributes unchanged. The Prophet Elias corresponds 
with Apollo, the sun god of old, the similarity of the names Elias and Helios 
doubtless suggesting the idea. “ When it thunders they say Prophet Elias is 
driving in his chariot in pursuit of dragons ; he can send rain when he likes, like 
‘ Ombrios Zeus ’ of ancient mythology ; and his temples, like those of Phcebus 
Apollo, are invariably set on high, and visited with great reverence in times of 
drought or deluge. ” Nor is this the only instance in which a resemblance in 
sound has led to strange consequences. St. Eleutherios has been the patron 
saint of women in child-birth, for no better reason than that his name indicates 
freedom (eleutheria). Diana, or Artemis, has given rise to a saint of the mascu- 
line gender, St. Artemidos, with attributes quite the same as those of the heathen 
goddess. St. George has replaced Theseus, St. Charalambos is only a new form 
for vEsculapius, and St. Nicholas is supposed to have the' same care of the sea 
and must be propitiated with equal devotion by sailors, as Neptune in former 
days. At Amorgos Mr. Bent found an oracle in a Greek church, where a priest, 
rather reluctantly, it is true, consented to cast the visitor’s horoscope by means 
of water drawn from a sacred spring. Of the folk-lore in which the volume 
abounds, and which forms its great charm, we cannot speak here. “ The 
Cyclades’ ' will amply repay a careful perusal. Henry M. Baird. 

By way of summary we have occasion to notice further : 

Madagascar and France, etc. By George A. Shaw, F.Z.S., London Mission, 
Tamatave. i2mo, pp. 438. (New York : American Tract Society, 150 Nassau 

Street). Scotland' s Influence on Civilization. By the Rev. Leroy J. Halsey, 

D.D., LL.D. 121110, pp. 256. (Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of Education, 
1334 Chestnut Street.) It will be remembered that the treatment of the English 
missionary, Mr. Shaw, by officers of the French fleet on the coast of Madagas- 
car, became the occasion of serious diplomatic correspondence between England 
and France in 1883, and of a. considerable indemnity. The course pursued by 
France toward Madagascar Mr. Shaw has had occasion to study in its history, 
and to observe in its recent developments. It is difficult to see how the course 
of the powerful, restless, aggressive European nation can be justified or palliated. 
On the other hand, we can only wonder at the dignity, ability, and firmness 
with which the islanders, just emerging from heathenism, have maintained 
themselves not only in the unequal conflict, but in nurturing and pressing for- 



ward education, religion, and all that belongs to the new life that was just open- 
ing before them. Facts already made familiar to us by Ellis, Sibree, and other 
writers on Madagascar, are in the volume before us in new forms and groupings 
put in combination with the personal observations and testimonies of Mr. Shaw. 
The chapters on the flora and launa, and meteorology of the island considerably 

increase the permanent value of the book. Dr. Halsey writes with undisguised 

admiration and enthusiasm of Scotland, its history, its heroes, and its saints ; of 
its services in literature, science, and religion ; of what its sons have done abroad 
as well as at home in many a noble testimony, and for many an important inter- 
est. As we read such a record we turn back with deepened interest to Mr. Shaw’s 
testimony (it. s., p. 293): “ It is not too much to say that no nation, with, perhaps, 
the exception of the Japanese, has made so much progress and has shown so much 
vigor for development in civilization and Christianity as the Malagasy, especially 
the Hovas, during the past twenty years.” Were not the islands of all the seas 
promised to our Lord ? Charles A. Aiken. 

The Following Works have been Received : 


Pen-Pictures at the Dobsons’ ; or, the Command and the Blessing. By Mrs. 
A. K. Dunning. 

Drew Drake and his Nets. 


Afternoon Songs. By Julia C. R. Dorr. 

The Greek Islands and Turkey After the War. By Henry M. Field, D.D.